:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2008 Rajesh Ghanshyamdas Shah ..Appellant Vs. Rajal Rajesh Shah ..Respondent Ms. Soma Singh i/by Vivek Sharma for appellant. Mr. Prashant Prabhu for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : January 12, 2009. Date : January 12, 2009. Date : January 12, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. We have heard Ms. Singh with Mr. Sharma the learned counsel for the appellant-husband. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Family Court regarding the directions to pay Rs.8000/- per month by way of maintenance to the wife. Mr. Prabhu appears for the respondent-wife. 2. The parties were married on 12/7/2002 and the marriage came to be registered under the Special :2: Marriage Act, 1956. Sometimes in April 2004, the wife approached the Family Court with Petition No.A-741 of 2004 for divorce on the ground of cruelty, maintenance and other reliefs under Section 27(1)(d) of the said Act. 3. By consent of the parties, the decree of dissolution of the marriage has been granted under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1956 by the Family Court and as noted earlier the only challenge is on the point of maintenance fixed at Rs.8000/- per month. 4. It was contended by the wife that the husband was earning anywhere between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month and in support of these contentions she also gave details of the business run by the husband (Tobacco and Supari business). The husband denied that his income was anywhere between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month and stated that his income was only Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per month. The Family Court noted that the husband had agreed to submit the income tax returns to substantiate his :3: claim of income but he did not do so. The Family Court also took into consideration the admissions of the husband that the business was in the name and style of M/s. G.D. Shah and Co. and it was a proprietary concern. The husband accepted that it was his own business and there was no other sharer. The Family Court also noted that the residential premises of the husband were part of a family property consisting of ground floor plus two floors. The first floor premises were in occupation of the husband, whereas the second floor premises were in occupation of the brother of the appellant. On the ground floor there are six shops located and four of which have been given on rent and the husband was carrying on business from one of the remaining two shops. 5. When we called upon the husband to produce before us the books of account, he could not do so. The Family Court accepted the monthly income of the husband between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.8000/- per month. The business as well as residential premises of the husband are located in a fast developing suburb like :4: Malad and in these obtaining circumstances the Family court was justified in rejecting the husband’s contentions that he was earning only Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per month. The inference drawn by the Family Court in fixing the monthly income of the husband between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- cannot be said to be erroneous or without any basis. Having regards to the life style of both the spouses and the wife being entitled to live a normal life even on marriage having been dissolved by a decree of divorce, the Family Court rightly fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.8000/- per month to be paid by the husband. We are, therefore, satisfied that this appeal must fail at the threshold. 6. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. 7. Civil Application No. 379 of 2008 does not survive and same shall stand disposed off. :5: (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)