1 (901) WP 5176/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 5176 OF 2010 Deepak Gokulchand Agarwal .. Petitioner Vs. Meghna Deepak Agarwal .. Respondent Ms. Deepa Ahuja i/b Mr. S. R. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr. Mehul Rathod i/b Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the Respondent. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 8th December, 2010 P.C. 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of interim maintenance granted in an interim application taken out by the wife in Petition for judicial separation filed by her. That Petition was withdrawn. The interim order came to an end. The Petition for divorce has been filed. Further interim application may be made in that Petition. This Petition would become infructuous. Despite that the Petitioner husband has sought to challenge the order and has sought to argue the Petition before me. 2. He contends that he earns approximately Rs. 30,000/- and that the interim maintenance granted is also Rs.30,000/- which is stated to be 100% of his salary and, therefore, requires to be modified. 3. The Petitioner has deposited Rs.2,50,000/- in 2 (901) WP 5176/10 this Petition as per the directions passed in the order dated 27th July, 2010 of this Court. The Petitioner has produced the statement of his bank account which is a salary account in Bank of Baroda. The Statement shows only his salaries credited to that account. The Petitioner admittedly has another bank account in Punjab National Bank. There are various credit entries in that account which are not his salaries. He claims that that is joint account with his father. He is the first account holder. He has sought to show the reasons for some of the entries. The Court cannot go into each of the entries in the bank account. The fact remains that he has another account which has entries of thousands of rupees which is not by way of salaries. 4. The Respondent wife has alleged that he has 2 other accounts in ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank. The husband has disputed that fact. 5. The parties separated in 2007. For the Court to adjudicate upon the approximate income of the husband, income tax returns for some years prior and some years after the period of separation would have to be produced. 6. All those are not produced though called upon. One income tax return for the assessment year 2006-07 shows his income from salary as well as income from business or profession as also income from other sources. The Petitioner has sought to show that both the incomes are from salary. He claims that he served in 2 separate companies. He relied upon Form-16 of 2 companies. These would show whatever income that he earned for whichever period of that year in the respective companies. The 3 (901) WP 5176/10 total amount earned by way of salary in the 2 companies is Rs. 1,10,284/- and Rs.77,267/-. That total amount is reflected under Item No.15 showing his income from salary only. That does not explain his income from business or profession. He claims that he earned that income in the interregnum between his 2 employments. There is no such case on the pleadings. He has not shown what was his business in the interregnum. He has denied any business. His earlier returns would be required to see whether there was any income from business or profession in the earlier years. That is not produced. His later returns do not show income from business or profession. Those returns are after his separation. Those returns filed by himself without showing the source of his income shown earlier cannot be fully accepted. 7. His income tax returns show deduction under Section 80C etc. Deduction in the Public Provident Fund (PPF) is to the full extent of Rs.70,000/-. He has also claimed deduction of Rs.44,000/- against Fixed Deposits. These investments have been made by him and would be made from the savings from his income. 8. The Learned Judge has considered the case of the wife that the husband is a Chartered Accountant having C.A. Consultancy with Project Finance. He earns an income of Rs.2 lacs and has no other liabilities as his family members are well settled. The husband has been called upon to furnish certain documents including his income tax returns for the last 5 years when the application was pending which have not been produced. Under these circumstances the explanation of the husband that he carried on business and earned some income only 4 (901) WP 5176/10 in the interregnum between two jobs cannot be accepted. There is nothing in his pleadings to explain that fact. The learned Judge has specifically observed that the returns of the 5 years called upon has not been produced and only 2 years returns are produced. 9. The learned Judge has also considered his investments in Fixed Deposits as well as PPF which must be taken into consideration to adjudicate his approximate income from salary or otherwise. 10. The learned Judge has also considered that his own bio data shows him to be a “C. A. Consultancy with Project Finance” as claimed by the wife. The learned Judge has also seen his bank account showing various self entries of withdrawal of cash of Rs.25,000/-, 75,000/- etc. All these have not been explained on affidavit. They could be considered only upon evidence. 11. It is seen that after the order of interim maintenance was passed, the husband withdrew the Petition to claim that the interim order would come to an end. Thereafter he has filed another Petition. These aspects would have to be re-adjudicated therein. Despite the fact that this Court mentioned that this Petition would become infructuous, the husband agitated the Petition and hence the evidence produced by the wife or produced by the husband on account of wife as well as the evidence not produced by him that he was called upon to produce have been considered. Under those circumstances the interim order and the reasonings thereof do not come up for inference at all. 5 (901) WP 5176/10 12. Hence Writ Petition is dismissed. ( ROSHAN DALVI, J.)