The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a significant order addressing interim maintenance, enhanced the monthly payment for a wife from ₹50,000 to ₹3,50,000. A division bench comprising Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan found that the husband had made “positive misstatements” regarding his finances and had “not come to Court with clean hands.”
The Court was hearing two competing interim applications within a Family Court Appeal. The wife sought an enhancement of maintenance, while the husband sought its complete cancellation. The High Court allowed the wife’s application, directing the husband to pay ₹42,00,000 (representing 12 months’ advance maintenance) within four weeks, citing his “dishonest picture” of finances and the “paltry” sum previously awarded.
Background of the Case
The parties were married on November 16, 1997, and co-habited for 16 years before separating in 2013. In 2015, the husband filed for divorce.
On February 24, 2023, the Family Court, Pune, granted the husband a divorce on the ground of cruelty (“Impugned Judgement”). The Family Court fixed permanent alimony at ₹50,000 per month, the same amount that had been ordered as interim maintenance during the proceedings.
Both parties filed cross-appeals against the Impugned Judgement, which was subsequently stayed. Pending the final disposal of these appeals, the wife filed an Interim Application seeking enhancement of maintenance to ₹5 lakhs per month, while the husband filed an Interim Application seeking cancellation of any maintenance obligation.
Arguments of the Parties
The Wife’s Submissions: Appearing in person, the wife contended that the husband had historically been a “chronic defaulter” in paying the interim maintenance. She argued that his financial affidavits, required under the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha, were “blatantly false.” She sought enhancement commensurate with her expenses and those required for her daughter, whose upbringing she stated was entirely on her shoulders.
The Husband’s Submissions: Represented by counsel, the husband pleaded that he should be relieved of any maintenance obligation. He contended that he is “not a man of means,” stating his income from multiple partnership firms in the real estate business had “depleted since the Covid-19 Pandemic.”
He pointed to his Income Tax Returns for Assessment Year 2022-23, which showed an income “barely over Rs. 6 lakhs.” He further argued that the wife had sufficient income from working as a home tutor and running a plant nursery business. He claimed to have already paid ₹21.65 lakhs, asserting this was “more than enough.” He also sought a “set-off” against maintenance for a ₹50 lakh loan he claimed to have advanced to the wife’s uncle.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, made prima facie observations based on the material on record.
On Assessing Income in Family Businesses: The Court observed that the husband’s family runs a “composite family business” and the husband is an “integral member” of this “extremely well endowed” family.
The Court held that in such cases, a narrow focus on personal tax returns is “inappropriate, misleading and unjust.” It stated: “The allocation of income, profitability and net worth among the constituents of a family is a measure that families can entirely arrange, manage and contrive.” It added that courts must look at the de facto lifestyle, as the husband’s financial interests are “intricately and inextricably interwoven” with the wider family interests.
On the Husband’s Credibility and “Unclean Hands”: The Court found “not much credibility” in the husband’s reliance on his ITRs. It described his pleadings of living a “life of penury” as eroding his credibility, stating that his claim of earning only ₹50,000 per month (₹6 lakhs annually) and thus being unable to pay the wife, “On the facet of it, the import is farcical.”
The judgment noted that the husband’s claim to set-off a loan to the wife’s uncle against maintenance was “indicative of this sense of entitlement and transactional approach.”
The Court found a stark contradiction between the husband’s “self-description in affirmations sworn on oath” and his “self-description to the world at large” on his group’s website, where he is described as the “torchbearer” of the patriarch. The Court concluded: “There is no manner of doubt that… [the husband] has come to Court with unclean hands.”
Contradictions in Financial Claims: The Court highlighted several contradictions in the husband’s claims:
- Son’s Education: The husband claimed he had to depend on his brother and take an education loan to fund his son’s education abroad. However, the Court noted that bank records showed “outflows from [the husband] to his brother… between September 2018 and July 2023 would add up to over Rs. 10 crores.”
- Education Loan EMI: The husband claimed an EMI of ₹1,06,235 for the education loan, which the Court found “clearly undermines his reliance on his Income Tax Returns to indicate that he only earns just over Rs. 50,000 per month.”
- Lifestyle: The Court noted photographs from a joint birthday party in May 2024 where the husband and his son wore Kenzo T-shirts, which “could cost upwards of Rs. 15,000 per piece.” The Court clarified: “What does not appeal to us… is the act of contemporaneously lying on oath about being a man of no means…”
- Asset Transfers: The Court found a “strong prima facie case” of a pattern of transferring ownership interests from the husband to his brother “with a view to suppress the depiction of their asset ownership interest to Courts.”
On the Wife’s Expenses and Daughter’s Upbringing: The Court rejected the husband’s contentions that the wife’s listed expenses for herself and her daughter (including yoga, violin, and baking classes) were “exorbitant.”
The judgment termed the husband’s argument as having a “patriarchal tenor” and reflecting a “mean and vindictive approach to the welfare of his own daughter for no reason other than the fact that she is parented by [the wife].”
On the Family Court’s Award: The High Court held that the ₹50,000 maintenance awarded by the Family Court was “not at all a well-informed one” and “simply paltry.” It found the Family Court had “completely missed the attention” of the “real sweep and scale of the financial interests” due to the husband “presenting a dishonest picture.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the wife’s Interim Application and disposed of the husband’s Interim Application.
The Court summarized its prima facie findings:
- The husband “has not come to Court with clean hands,” having made “material suppression” and “positive misstatements.”
- The wife made a “strong prima facie case” that the maintenance awarded was “minuscule” and not commensurate with reasonable expenses.
- The 16-year duration of the marriage was an “important factor that has not been taken into consideration by the Learned Family Court.”
The Court passed the following directions:
- The wife is granted interim maintenance of ₹3,50,000 per month.
- The husband is directed to deposit a sum of ₹42,00,000 (representing 12 months’ maintenance starting from November 1, 2025) into the wife’s bank account within four weeks of the judgment’s upload.
The Court clarified that all findings are prima facie and subject to adjustments at the final hearing of the cross-appeals.
