Jatin Kewal Aggarwal vs Radhika Jatin Aggarwal
2021 Latest Caselaw 15756 Bom

Dusane                                  1/6    16 WP 11666.19 with IA 2841 with WP 6672.doc


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            WRIT PETITION NO.11666 OF 2019




     Jatin Kewal Aggarwal                     ....      Petitioner
            Vs.
     Radhika Jatin Aggarwal                   ....    Respondent

                                       WITH
                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2841 OF 2021
                                        IN
                          WRIT PETITION NO.11666 OF 2019


     Radhika Jatin Aggarwal                   ....      Applicant
            Vs.
     Jatin Kewal Aggarwal                     ....    Respondent

                                         WITH
                             WRIT PETITION NO.6672 OF 2021


     Radhika Jatin Aggarwal                   ....      Petitioner
            Vs.
     Jatin Kewal Aggarwal                     ....    Respondent


     Mrs. Manjula Rao a/w Ayaz Bilawala and Dhanashree Gaikaiwari i/by
     Bilawala and Co. for Petitioner in WP No. 11666 of 2019 and IA 2841 of
     2021.

     Mrs. Taubon F. Irani for Petitioner in WP No. 6672 of 2021.




         ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2021 21:38:11 :::
 Dusane                                        2/6   16 WP 11666.19 with IA 2841 with WP 6672.doc




                                         Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

Date : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2021

P.C.:

1. In dissolution of marriage proceedings initiated under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Respondent-wife's

application for grant of interim maintenance came to be allowed. As

against claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the Petitioner-husband was directed to

provide maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month to the Respondent-wife.

As such, this petition.

2. The submissions of Mrs. Rao, Senior Counsel appearing for

the Petitioner-husband are, the Court below has failed to consider

independent source of income of the Respondent-wife viz. her business

income from two firms, which she is operating. My attention is invited

to the factual matrix and the evidence on record in regard to Income-

Tax returns of the Respondent-wife for the year 2018-2019,

membership of Cricket Club of India of the Respondent, cash purchase

made, accommodation and travel facility provided by the Petitioner-

Dusane 3/6 16 WP 11666.19 with IA 2841 with WP 6672.doc

husband to the Respondent-wife and also the insurance facility. It is

claimed that the Respondent is drawing sufficient income from the fixed

deposits, which she had made with the Banks, which according to the

Counsel, the Family Court has failed to consider.

3. A specific contention is raised that the Respondent-wife has

made incorrect statement of fact that she has no independent earnings

and as such prayer for grant of maintenance should have been rejected.

4. While countering aforesaid submissions, Counsel for the

Respondent-wife would support the order impugned, however reserve

her right to claim enhanced maintenance.

5. Considered submissions.

6. Learned Family Court while dealing with the rival claims as

regards independent source of income of each of the parties and

quantum has relied on Income-Tax returns of both the parties and has

reached to a conclusion that the Petitioner-husband draws gross

income which was assessed at around Rs.33,97,105/-.

Dusane 4/6 16 WP 11666.19 with IA 2841 with WP 6672.doc

7. As far as independent source of income of Respondent-wife

is concerned, it is apparent that she is drawing income from operation

of two business / Firms in which she is shown to be partner. Said fact

was taken into account by the Family Court while assessing the income

of Respondent-wife, for the year 2018-2019 which is shown to be

Rs.7,76,000/-.

8. The Family Court was sensitive to the facilities, which are

drawn by the Respondent-wife viz. accommodation, transportation,

club membership, insurance facility etc. and has proceeded to award

maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month as against claim of

Rs.3,00,000/- per month.

9. The award of interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per

month is based on the assessment of independent income of both the

parties and expenses which the Respondent-wife will be required to

meet with.

Dusane 5/6 16 WP 11666.19 with IA 2841 with WP 6672.doc

10. Since the order of award of maintenance is based on

appreciation of the material available on record particularly the income

of rival parties and expenses, in my opinion, the order impugned cannot

be faulted with, which warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article

227 of Constitution of India. No case for interference is made out.

Petition fails and same stands rejected.

11. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 11666 of 2019,

the Interim Application does not survive and same is accordingly

disposed of.

12. On instructions, motion is made for withdrawal of the Writ

Petition No.6672 of 2021. The Writ Petition stands dismissed as

withdrawn as the other Writ Petition preferred by the husband being

Writ Petition No. 11666 of 2019 is dismissed on merits.

However, withdrawal of the petition will not preclude the

wife from moving the Family Court seeking enhancement based on the

judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and

Dusane 6/6 16 WP 11666.19 with IA 2841 with WP 6672.doc

Another, decided in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 (arising out of SLP

(Cri) No. 9503 of 2018.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )