[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bhairav Kumar Surajmal Jain vs Neeta Mithalal Jain on 4 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:53133 51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.16182 OF 2024
Mr. Bhairavkumar Surajmal Jain,
Age-37 years, Occupation-Tax Professional,
R/at-Flat No.1203, Khimji Nagar CHS SRA,
Bhattipada Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-78 ...Petitioner
Versus
Neeta Mithalal Jain
Age-40 years, Occu.-Fashion Designer,
R/at-B/14, Sapt Sindhu Society, Road No.2,
Chembur Station Road, Chembur (E),
Mumbai-400071 ...Respondent
Mr. Ranbir Shekhawat i/b. Mr. Raj Legal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Surendra Jodhavat, for the Respondent.
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 20th NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
the consent of the parties.
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
2. The impugned order dated 28.03.2024, passed by the Judge,
Family Court No.3, Mumbai, is under challenge in the present Writ
Petition. The impugned order is passed below Exhibit 10 on an
Interim Application No.100 of 2021 in Petition No. A-121 of 2021,
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("HMA"),
granting interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the
Respondent from the date of filing of application till the decision of
the main Petition.
3. The Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent, who has
filed proceedings for Divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)
(i-b) of the HMA, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. According to the
Petitioner, their marriage was solemnized on 22.02.2016 at Pali,
Rajasthan. There is no issue born out of the said wedlock. It is
alleged by the Petitioner that, he was given an understanding that,
Respondent is a law graduate, but after marriage, he came to know
that, she is a fashion designer by profession. Therefore, according
to him, since beginning of their marriage, the Respondent and her
family members have been lying to him. There used to be frequent
quarrels between the Petitioner and Respondent on petty issues.
The Respondent used to rake up petty issues and quarrel with the
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
Petitioner. With the passage of time, the Respondent became more
and more aggressive and violent. Though he made every possible
attempt to be patient with the Respondent, his patience reached
the limit of tolerance, hence, he was constrained to file Petition for
Divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
4. Upon receipt of the summons, the Respondent filed her
Written Statement and denied the allegations made by the
Petitioner. During the pendency of the HMA, the Respondent has
filed an Interim Application under section 24 of the HMA, claiming
that she is a housewife without any source of income, whereas the
Petitioner is earning Rs. 1,50,000/ per month and leading a
luxurious life. On this background, she claimed Rs. 75,000 per
month towards maintenance during the pendency of Hindu
Marriage Petition.
5. The Interim Application was contested by the Petitioner.
Both the parties have filed their affidavit of Assets and Liabilities
and based on the documents placed on record, the Judge Family,
Court, passed an order granting interim maintenance of Rs.
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
15,000/ per month from the date of the application till its disposal
vide order dated 28.03.2024.
6. Mr. Ranbir Shekhawat, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that, the impugned order is passed by the Judge, Family
Court, without taking into consideration the contents of Affidavit
of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respective parties. According to
him, although the Respondent has claimed that, he is earning
Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, it needs to be appreciated that, he is an
Accountant by profession, with a private practice, he needs to
maintain an Establishment, hence, after deducting all the office
expenses, hardly an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month is saved.
He does not even have a residence of his own, and is residing with
his parents in a small flat, which has been allotted to his mother
under the SRA Scheme. He further submits that, from his income,
he is maintaining his parents and an aged grandmother. All of
them being senior citizens are suffering from several ailments,
their medical needs and expenses are required to be borne by the
Petitioner.
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
7. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn my
attention to the title clause of the written statement and the
Interim Application for maintenance filed by the Respondent,
wherein her occupation is shown as fashion designer. Hence,
according to him, his claim that she is a fashion designer and has
an income of Rs. 24,000/- is supported by her own documents.
He further relies on the ITRs of the Respondent for the A.Y.
2017-18, which reflects her gross income of 2,83,698/- to contend
that, payment of Income Tax Returns ("ITRs") itself is indicative of
the fact that the Respondent has a source of income. He further
relies on the statement of account of the Respondent, of the Bharat
Co-operative Bank Ltd.(Mumbai) to support his claim that, there
are various entries of sizeable amounts deposited in the account of
Respondent.
8. It is his contention that not only the entries of deposit in the
bank statement, but even the fixed deposit in the name of the
Respondent dated 08.10.2016 and 14.06.2017 of an amount of
Rs. 14,000/- and 50,000/- are indicative of the fact that, the
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
Respondent does have a source of income and she has suppressed
her actual income.
9. Relying upon his own Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, he
contends that, he has shown his monthly expenses to the extent of
Rs. 20,000 and his income is of Rs. 21,223/- which is why, he does
not have any spare amount left to pay the Respondent. It is further
his contention that, in the application, the Respondent has claimed
an inflated amount by attributing an income of Rs. 1,50,000/- to
the Petitioner. Hence, according to him, the Judge, Family Court,
has committed an error while passing the impugned order by
granting maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the Respondent.
10. The learned Advocate Mr. Surendra Jodhavat for the
Respondent, while controverting the claims of the Petitioner
submits that, so far as the occupation of the Respondent is
concerned, though it is claimed by the Petitioner that, she is a
fashion designer and in the title clause of the 'Written Statement'
as well as 'Interim Application', she herself has shown her
occupation as fashion designer. According to him, in the title clause
of the Marriage Petition, the Petitioner has shown her as a fashion
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
designer and the same has been continued in both the documents
mechanically, which is an inadvertent mistake, however, he has
drawn my attention to the averments made in the 'Written
Statement' to contend that, there is a categorical denial by the
Respondent that, during their separation, she is doing work as a
'fashion designer' and has an income of Rs. 22,000/- per month.
11. As regards the ITRs, she has already stated in her Written
Statement that, the Petitioner has filed her ITR purportedly for
HUF purpose. The ITR of the year 2017-18 relied upon by the
Petitioner are prepared by him, and pertains exactly to the period
after their marriage. It is the only ITR paid in her name, after that
she has never paid any ITR.
12. It is also submitted that, the reliance placed by the Petitioner
on her FDs and her bank statement is totally misplaced for the
reason that her bank account as well as her FDs are in the joint
name with her sister Bhavika Jain. Therefore, it cannot be assumed
that, the amount belongs to her alone.
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
13. The learned Advocate for the Respondent has further drawn
my attention to the particulars of the amounts in the bank
statement to submit that the major deposits in that bank account
are made by Mithalal Natmal Jain and Madhubala Mithalal Jain,
who are the mother and father of the Respondent. The major
deposit reflects their name, which cannot be relied to claim that
Respondent is earning as a fashion designer, hence she does not
need any maintenance.
14. According to the Respondent, she does not have any source
of income. She is not doing any work as fashion designer. She is
maintained by her parents. She is also residing along with her
parents. She is the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner. Hence, it
is the moral and legal duty of the Petitioner as per section 24 of the
HMA, 1955, to maintain her during the pendency of the Hindu
Marriage Petition.
15. As far as the reliance placed by the Petitioner on his ITRs is
concerned, it is the contention of the Advocate for the Respondent
that, the Petitioner, being an accountant by profession, is an expert
in the field of Accounts. Hence, he knows the intricacies of
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
disclosing only relevant income and accordingly, making
adjustments for making payment of taxes. It is thus his contention
that, though the Applicant has claimed Rs. 75,000/-, as interim
maintenance, without taking into account, the profession of the
petitioner the Judge, Family Court, has awarded a very meager
amount. Hence, the order passed by the Family Court does not
deserve any interference.
16. I have perused the order and after hearing the parties, a
very short question that arises, is that whether the order granting
maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the Respondent
deserves any interference.
17. The Judge, Family Court, has taken into account the rival
claims made by the respective parties in their application, as well
as the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by them. Admittedly,
the Petitioner herein is an Chartered Accountant by profession. He
has relied on the ITRs for the year 2019-20, showing his income of
Rs. 2,01,289/-. Rs. 79,520/- for the AY 2021. Rs. 80,900/- for AY
2021. These amounts reflected in the ITRs have been compared by
the Judge, Family Court with the account statement of Bank of
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
Maharashtra filed for the period 05.01.2019 to 07.1.2023 and also
of SBI and ICICI Banks for the period from 01.01.2019 to
30.01.2023 and 12.10.2020 to 31.01.2023, respectively to come to
the conclusion that, the Petitioner has meticulously and skillfully
diversified his funds. Additionally, there are various transactions,
which have been marked and claimed to be the salary of
employees of the Petitioner. Thus, the Judge, Family Court, has
come to the conclusion that, it is unbelievable that, a person who
employees staff and makes payment of salary to them would draw
only an income of Rs. 21,000/-. Though it is claimed by the
petitioner that the amounts credited in his account are credited by
his clients in order to facilitate payment of ITRs, hence, so many
entries of large amounts are reflected in his account, it has not
been believed by the Judge, Family Court. On the contrary, he has
drawn an inference that, the Petitioner, being an expert in the field
of accounts, has diversified his funds to evade legal liabilities.
18. Though there might be some substance in the claim of the
Petitioner that, some amounts are deposited in his account so as to
facilitate the payment of tax for his clients, however, all the huge
amounts reflected in his account cannot be said to be the deposits
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
made for making the payment of tax. It is, therefore, unbelievable
that, a Chartered Accountant like the Petitioner, with an
Establishment of a few paid employees, would draw an income of
Rs. 21,000/- per month. It is well-settled that ITRs are not
necessarily an accurate guide to the real income of a party
embroiled in matrimonial litigation and that the Family Court must
determine the real income on a holistic assessment of the material
before it. In the case of Kiran Tomar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr.1, the Supreme Court emphasised this principle and
observed as follows:
"10. On the first aspect, it is well-settled that income tax returns
do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income.
Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict,
there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the
Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the
evidence what would be the real income of the second
respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition
commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed
during the time when they were staying together. The two
children are aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, and their needs
have to be duly met."
The Judge, Family Court, has, therefore, rightly drawn the
inference about the income of the Petitioner. Thus, the conclusion
that the Petitioner must be drawing an income of Rs. 50,000/- to
60,000/- per month, cannot be faulted with. While entertaining an
12022 SCC OnLine SC 1539
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
Interim Application, it is always permissible for the Courts to pass
such orders by drawing inferences on the basis of the materials
available, since interim orders are passed only on the basis of the
pleadings of the parties.
19. The Judge, Family Court, has taken a balanced view, after
taking into account various documents relied by the parties, which
is evident from the fact that, though the Respondent has claimed
an amount of Rs. 75,000/- per month towards maintenance and
legal expenses, it was found to be inflated, more so, on the
background of Rs. 38,000/- per month claimed to be her monthly
expenses. The Judge, Family Court, has taken a very pragmatic
view of the matter by refusing to take into account the rent of
Rs.10,000/- claimed by the Respondent, since the Respondent is
residing with her parents. Even the expenses of Rs.5,000/- shown
for cosmetics has been discarded by Judge, Family Court, to arrive
at a just and a reasonable amount for the monthly expenditure.
The Judge, Family Court, has also taken into account the short
duration and co-habitation of the parties while determining the
quantum. Only after having regard to all the relevant aspects, the
Judge, Family Court, has rightly come to the conclusion that
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
51-WP-16182-2024(FCJ).DOC
Rs. 15,000/- per month would be the reasonable amount of
maintenance admissible to the Respondents, based on the basis of
estimated income of Rs. 50,000/- to 60,000/- of the Petitioner,
which is a very reasonable amount for a single person to survive,
who is residing with parents.
20. The Judge, Family Court, has passed a reasoned order,
taking all the necessary aspects into account, which does not
deserve any interference, more so, considering the limited scope of
interference in the order passed by the trial court in its jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do
not find any case for interference made out by the Petitioner. As
such, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be
dismissed.
21. Rule is discharged.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)
{
th
04 December 2025
Kartikeya Goti, PA
