Anupam Gupta vs Sumeet Gupta
2011 Latest Caselaw 2872 Del

51.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CM(M) 1718/2004

%                              Judgment Delivered on: 30.05.2011


Anupam Gupta                                                 ..... Petitioner
                   Through :   Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri for the petitioner along
                               with father of the petitioner

                   versus

Sumeet Gupta                               ..... Respondents
                   Through :   Mr. Jagdev Singh & Mr. Arvind Mishra
                               advocates for the respondent along with
                               the respondent

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

          1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
             the judgment?
          2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
          3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

+ CM(M)NO.1718/2011.

1. Present petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.2004

passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an application

filed by the respondent (wife), seeking maintenance for herself and

her minor daughter, who is stated to be fourteen years of age

presently. Vide the said order the trial court has directed the

petitioner to pay the respondent wife a sum of Rs. 35,000 per

month and a sum of Rs. 15,000 per month for the minor daughter.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding the

application filed by respondent under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage

Act, the trial court has erred in granting maintenance of Rs 50,000

per month to the respondent and the minor daughter. It is

submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has

erred in assessing the income of the petitioner @ Rs.1.00 lac

without any reasonable basis for arriving at the said figure. It is

next submitted that the petitioner is working as a director in

Overseas Courier Services and draws a monthly income of

Rs.16,400/- from his employment. It is further submitted that the

trial court has without taking into consideration the salary of the

petitioner awarded maintenance to the respondent wife in excess

only on the basis that the petitioner has a major share in 'family

business' namely in Overseas Courier Services, which is an agent of

an international courier company. It is submitted by the counsel for

the petitioner that the trial court has erroneously reached a

conclusion that the petitioner jointly owns major movable and

immovable properties. The counsel further submits that the

properties sought to be relied upon by the Court are in the name of

Shri M. L Gupta i.e. the petitioner's father. Ld. Counsel next submits

that the trial court while awarding maintenance has included the

assets given to the petitioner by his father on account of natural

love and affection. The counsel for the petitioner next submits that

the properties purported to be joint family properties, in fact belong

to the petitioner's father and are not joint properties. The petitioner

has placed copies of ownership and proofs to substantiate his

claim. It is next submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

trial court has speciously lifted the corporate veil and further has

also included the business income and assets in the personal

income and assets of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted

that the trial court has erred in passing the impugned order.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has wrongly

drawn an inference that the petitioner has not made specific denial

to the averments stated in the maintenance application filed by the

respondent and accordingly the trial court has erroneously

considered all the averments made by the respondent as accepted

by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is

primarily on this flawed premise that the trial court has passed the

impugned order. Mr.Agnihotri, Advocate, submits that the trial

court has drawn a wrong inference with regard to the fact that the

petitioner in his reply to section 24 application has not made any

specific denials. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner had made clear unambiguous statements with

regards to the fact that the petitioner was not the absolute owner

of the property situated at House No.M-225, Greater Kailash-II, New

Delhi as the same was purchased with a loan of Rs. 45.00 Lac from

the petitioners father. It is next submitted by the counsel for the

petitioner that the trial court has drawn an incorrect inference that

the petitioner has not been able to give any reasonable explanation

with regards as to how was he making repayments of the loan

despite earning a trivial sum of Rs. 16,400/- per month. Counsel

next submits that the trial court has without any reasonable basis

opined that the actual price of the property at Greater Kailash was

much higher than the actual sale consideration shown. Counsel

submits that the above averments were held to be true only on the

incorrect idea that the petitioner failed to make specific denials to

the averments.

4. It is next submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

expenses of travelling, boarding, lodging and frequent travels

abroad that have been shown to be reflective as a status of the

petitioner, whereas the expense were incurred in the course of

business and accordingly were paid by the company or the

principal agent. Learned counsel further submits that the expenses

of the above nature were incurred not only for the petitioner but

were incurred for all sub agents by the company.

5. It is next submitted that during pendency of the matter before the

trial court, the respondent had filed an application under order 11

Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code seeking directions from the trial

court to the petitioner to produce various documents inter alia the

tax returns, balance sheets, memorandum of association. It is

submitted that the petitioner filed a reply to the said application

and filed a copies of the income tax return for the previous year

and other documents. In the reply to the application the petitioner

had clarified that the petitioner was a sub agent of Overseas

Courier Services of India from 01.10.1985 to 31.03.1994 and

thereafter the petitioner along with his brother and sister started

the concern, namely, Overseas Courier Services. It is also the

stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the income tax

return filed for the year 1993-94 pertained to the period when the

petitioner was independently working as the sub agent of the

Courier Company. It is further submitted by the counsel for the

petitioner that the sub tenancy was terminated by the principles

w.e.f. 31.03.1994 after which the petitioner became a whole time

director in the company. The petitioner has placed on record

copies of his income tax returns for the year 1994-95 showing his

income at Rs.738670/-. The income-tax return filed for the period

1997-98 shows the income of the petitioner as Rs.42,000/- per

annum. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted a summary of

income tax returns. The same is reproduced in the table below:

              Previous Year       Assessment       Amount (Rs.)
                                  year
              1993-94             1994-95          7,38,670/-
              1994-95             1995-96          54,000/-
              1995-96             1996-97          60,000/-
              1996-97             1997-98          2,40,000/-
              1997-98             1998-99          2,40,000/-
              1999-2000           2000-01          2,40,000/-

The returns of the petitioner for subsequent years are as follows:

              Previous Year       Assessment      Amount (Rs.)
                                  year
              2000-01             2001-02         2,40,000/-
              2001-02             2002-03         2,40,000/-
              2002-03             2003-04         2,40,000/-
              2003-04             2004-05         2,70,000/-

6. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the

respondent is not in any need of maintenance as she herself is a

qualified fashion designer and belongs to a very well to do family. It

is next submitted that the respondent with the intent to harass the

petitioner has engaged in such time consuming and fabricated

litigation.

7. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent

has misled the trial court by filing voluminous documents on

record. The Counsel submits that it has been wrongly suggested by

the respondent that the petitioner is a man of means and is

capable of paying maintenance so awarded. The counsel submits

that the assets and the comforts that were provided to the

petitioner by his father were on account of the love of the father

son relationship. Ld. Counsel next submits that it cannot be said

that the petitioner was incurring all such expenditure out of his own

pocket. Accordingly the counsel submits that the order of the trial

court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

8. Counsel for the respondent has refuted the allegations and

averments made by the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the

respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the order of the

trial court. It is next submitted that the trial court has only after

duly weighing the pleadings has reached a conclusion that the

petitioner is concealing his income despite being a man of means

and has passed the a well reasoned order. It is the contention of

the respondent that as rightly opined by the trial court the

petitioner is a man of means and is extremely well off. It is further

submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in order to deny

the legitimate maintenance due to the respondent and the minor

daughter, the petitioner has been manipulating the records of the

family business to show low income and accordingly the petitioner

has not come to court with clean hands. Counsel next submits that

the petitioner has not made any specific denial to the averments

and has accordingly, held that the petitioner had admitted to the

averments made by the respondent. Accordingly, it is submitted

that the trial court has reached to a correct conclusion based on

cogent reasons that the respondent is a man of means and has

rightly awarded the maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/-.

9. It has been vehemently denied by the counsel for the respondent

that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs. 16,400/- per month. It is

submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has

not disclosed his true income. Learned Counsel submits that the

petitioner despite denying that the business was not a family

business has made admissions in his written statement that the

business of the petitioner was a family business. Counsel for the

respondent has drawn the attention to the written statement of the

petitioner.

10. It is next submitted that the concealment of the petitioner can be

seen from the fact that the petitioner has in the reply to section 24

application mentioned that the petitioner has no fixed deposits,

shares or any other source of income. However, the petitioner in his

reply to the application filed under Order XI Rule 12 of Civil

Procedure Code stated that he owns 350 shares of Rs.10/- each in

Overseas Consultancy Services. The counsel for the respondent

further submits that the price of each share has been wrongly

disclosed and with an intent to only suppress the income/assets of

the petitioner. The petitioner has disclosed the price of each share

to be Rs.10/- as against Rs.11,000 as mentioned in the articles of

association of the company. Counsel for the respondent has drawn

the attention of this court to the articles of association of the

Overseas Consultancy Services wherein the base price of each

share is mentioned as Rs. 11,000. It is next submitted that the plea

of the petitioner, that he is a director drawing a paltry salary and

does not have any interest or owns any of the movable or

immovable properties that belong to the Overseas Courier Services

is fabricated. The counsel submits that the company though

running in the name of the father is a family concern in which the

petitioner and his siblings have an interest. In order to show that

the petitioner has an interest in the family business, Ld. Counsel for

the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has transferred

some shares to his father without taking any consideration from

him. Counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this

court to the affidavit dated 17.03.2009 filed by the petitioner at

page 370 wherein the petitioner has admitted that he had received

Rs. 44 Lac from the sale of shares which were held by him in the

Overseas consultancy services. Counsel for the respondent submits

that in view of the above submission of the petitioner that the price

of each share was Rs. 10 cannot be believed. It is further submitted

that Counsel for the petitioner has refuted this submission and

stated that the amount received from sale of shares in any case

cannot be included in the income of the petitioner while

determining maintenance as the same was made in the year

22006-2007 i.e. after the divorce was granted.

11. Counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of the

court to an affidavit dated 24 March 2011, filed by the respondent

stating that the petitioner's act of concealing the income is clear

from the fact that the petitioner did not disclose that he was also

the owner of M/s. Pancea Corporation. The petitioner vide the said

firm was carrying out the trading and exporting tea, spices etc. It

has been further submitted in the affidavit that the petitioner is

holding 1200 shares as against the 350 shares in Overseas Courier

Corporation. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

opposed the reading of the affidavit as the same was filed by the

respondent after a delay of two years after all opportunities of the

respondents was closed.

12. It is next submitted by the counsel for the respondent that an idea

about the status of the petitioner can well be drawn from the fact

that he is a member of Hyatt Hotel. It is vehemently denied by the

counsel for the respondent that the petitioner travels abroad for

business purposes. The counsel submits that the petitioner in the

year 1999 went to see the world cup to London and often indulged

in such luxury trips 3-4 times a year. It is further submitted that the

petitioner stayed in Bombay for a considerable period and used to

stay in hotels spending about Rs. 1.5 to 2 Lac per month.

13. Counsel for the respondent in summing up his arguments submits

that there is no infirmity in the order of the trial court. The order of

the trial court is fairly detailed and has taken into account all

relevant factors. Counsel further submits that in the present case

the petitioner has not disclosed his true income and accordingly the

court must resort to some guess work in order to ascertain the true

income of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent has placed

reliance on Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge,

Dehradun & Others, reported at (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7

in support of this plea.

14. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused

the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by learned trial court. In instant

case, basic facts are not in dispute that the marriage between

parties was solemnized on 11.02.1990. One daughter was born out

of the wedlock who is stated to be 14 years of age presently.

Further, the minor daughter is in the care and custody of the

respondent. Admittedly the respondent has remarried in the year

2008.

15. In the instant case the primary grievance of the petitioner is that

the trial court has notwithstanding the salary of the petitioner has

reached at an incorrect conclusion that the petitioner (husband) is

a man of means and is the owner of various immovable and

movable properties. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted

that the trial court has erred in disbelieving the documents placed

on record inter alia the income tax returns.

16. It is a settled position of law that a wife is entitled to live in a

similar status as was enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is

the duty of the courts to ensure that it should not be a case that

one spouse lives in a life of comfort and luxury while the other

spouse lives a life of deprivation and poverty. During the pendency

of divorce proceedings the parties should be able to maintain

themselves and should be sufficiently entitled to be represented in

judicial proceedings. If in case the party is unable to do so on

account of insufficient income, the other spouse shall be liable to

pay the same.

17. In the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge,

Dehradun & Others, reported at (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 7,

it has been held as under:

"8. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstance of each case. Some scope for liverage can, however, be always there. Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month payable by respondent- husband to the appellant-wife."

18. Further it has been noticed by the Courts that the tendency of the

spouses in proceedings for maintenance is to not truthfully disclose

their true income. However, in such cases some guess work on the

part of Court is permissible. A Single Judge of this Court in the case

of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, reported at 140 (2007) DLT 16,

had culled out following 11 factors, which can be taken into

consideration for deciding the application under Section 24 of

Hindu Marriage Act, relevant portion of which reads as under:

8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their income. For self employed persons or persons employed in the unorganized sector, truthful income never surfaces. Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining the interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The court has to take a general view. From the various judicial precedents, the under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken into consideration while deciding an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are:

(1) Status of the parties.

(2) Reasonable wants of the claimant.

(3) The independent income and property of the claimant.

(4) The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain.

(5) The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

(6) Non-applicant's liabilities, if any. (7) Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant.

(8) Payment capacity of the non-applicant.

(9) Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

(10) The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

(11) The amount awarded under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.

19. Although there cannot be an exhaustive list of factors, which are to

be considered in guessing the income of the spouses, but the order

based on guess work cannot be arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. I

am of the view that arriving at the assessment with regard to the

income of a spouse, when the sources of income are either not

disclosed or not correctly disclosed, the Court can take into

consideration amongst the following factors:

             (i)       Life style of the spouse;

             (ii)      The amount spent at the time of marriage and the

                       manner in which marriage was performed;

             (iii)     Destination of honeymoon;

             (iv)      Ownership of motor vehicles;

             (v)       Household facilities;

             (vi)      Facility of driver, cook and other help;

             (vii)     Credit cards;

             (viii) Bank account details;

             (ix)      Club Membership;

             (x)       Amount of Insurance Premium paid;

             (xi)      Property or properties purchased;

             (xii) Rental income;

             (xiii) Amount of rent paid;

             (xiv) Amount spent on travel/ holiday;


              (xv)   Locality of residence;

             (xvi) Number of mobile phones;

             (xvii) Qualification of spouse;

(xviii) School(s) where the child or children are studying when

parties were residing together;

(xix) Amount spent on fees and other expenses incurred;

(xx) Amount spend on extra-curricular activities of children

when parties were residing together;

(xxi) Capacity to repay loan.

20. These are some of the factors, which may be considered by any

court in guesstimating or having a rough idea or to guess the

income of a spouse. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts that

one cannot ignore the fact that an Indian woman has been given an

equal status under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

and she has a right to live in dignity and according to the status of

her husband.

21. In the application filed by respondent, she has listed as many as

eight properties, which either belong to the petitioner or the

petitioner has a share in the same, all of which have been denied

by the petitioner except for a property situated at M-225, Greater

Kailash-II, New Delhi. The stand of the petitioner with regard to the

purchase of the property situated at M-225, Greater Kailash-II, New

Delhi, is that he has taken a loan from his father in the sum of

Rs.45.00 lakhs. This explanation tendered by the petitioner is

completely fanciful and not convincing.

22. Status and the lifestyle of the parties are an important

consideration while deciding an application under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act. It is not in dispute that the parties stayed at a

house in a posh locality i.e Greater Kailash in Delhi. It is further not

in dispute that the wedding reception of the parties was organized

at Oberoi hotel and the parties went to Japan for their honeymoon.

Though the counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent

only joined the petitioner in Japan for a training program which the

petitioner was undergoing.

23. In present case, the stand taken by the petitioner that he is earning

a paltry sum of Rs. 16,400/- per month cannot be believed

especially in view of the admissions of the petitioner that he has

been provided with many facilities/luxuries by the petitioner's

father on account of natural love and affection or in the course of

business. The petitioner has also admitted to have travelled

extensively in business class, enjoyed the facility of staying for

considerably long periods in luxury hotels. Though the petitioner

has stated that the facilities/luxuries were made available to the

petitioner in course of business. The income tax returns which

have been relied upon by the petitioner do not evoke any

confidence especially in the light of the surrounding circumstances

and the high status of living that was being enjoyed by the parties.

It is highly improbable that an employee drawing salary of

Rs.16,400/- per month would be entitled to a Hotel stay in a 5-Star

for months at a time.

24. A Reference may be made to a Division Bench decision of the

Bombay High Court in Vinod Dulerai Mehta v. Kanak Vinod

Mehta reported at AIR1990Bom120 wherein the court held that

the income tax returns could not be taken as a sole basis to assess

the income of a party. The relevant text is quoted herein under:

"The learned Judge therefore has come to the conclusion that the Income Tax returns filed by the husband are not conclusive of the true income of the husband and his income has to be assessed in the light of the said other consideration as well. We do not see anything wrong in this approach. As is common knowledge, Income Tax returns do not reflect the true position of the income of a party for several reasons, and cannot be taken as the sole guide for determining it in proceedings such as the present one".

25. The judgment of the Division Bench is fully applicable to the facts

of the present case. In today's time age tax avoidance and tax

evasion is the norm. The income tax returns of a person must

correspond to the status which is being enjoyed by a person and

the luxury being enjoyed by him. In the instant case I find that the

income tax returns do not reflect the clear picture of the income of

the petitioner. The Income Tax Return shows that petitioner has

suppressed the real income especially in view of the status and the

lifestyle of the parties.

26. Additionally, it is trite law that every averment must be specifically

admitted or denied or dealt with. A vague denial cannot absolve the

non applicant from his or her liability to pay maintenance. In the

instant case the averments of the respondent with regard to the

status, lifestyle etc of the parties have to be given some

consideration as the parties have resided together for a

considerable period of time and it is expected that during the time

the parties were staying together the respondent would be aware

of the income/status of the petitioner and would have enjoyed the

fruits of the same. I find force in the submission of the counsel for

the respondent that taking into account the lifestyle enjoyed by the

parties after marriage, the husband staying in three/five star hotels

in Mumbai, frequent air travels in business class it is clear that the

parties were leading a luxurious life. There appears to be some

concealment on part of the petitioner.

27. As held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasbir Kaur

(Smt.) (supra), Courts have also recognized the fact that spouses

in the proceedings for maintenance do not truthfully disclose their

true income and therefore some guess work on the part of the

Court is permissible. Further the Supreme Court has also observed

that "considering the diverse claims made by the parties one

inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of

conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of

the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision".

28. It has been held in the case of Neelam Malhotra v. Rajinder

Malhotra and Ors. reported at AIR 1994 Delhi 234 that the

income from family business may be taken into account while

deciding an application for interim maintenance. Relevant portion

reads as under:

"However, the controversial issue is whether the moveable and Immovable assets belonging to the other defendants could also be taken into consideration for determining the earning capacity and social status of the husband particularly when it is alleged that all the assets acquired by the defendants, including defendant NO.I, are out of the joint family business being run under the name and style of M/s-Laxmi Traders. It is urged by Ms. Geeta Mittal, learned counsel for the plaintiff that coupled with the fact that defendant No. 1 is admittedly having a joint kitchen with other members of the family, the statement of his account in the books of account of the said firm leaves little room for doubt that the business of the said concern is being carried on by the brother of defendant No. I for the benefit of the entire family, including defendant No. I and, Therefore, the income of the said firm should be taken into account not only to determine the social status of defendant No.1 but also for fixing the quantum of interim maintenance".

29. I have also carefully examined the Order passed by learned trial

court. It is settled law that the High Court will be slow in interfering

in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

unless there is grave miscarriage of justice and only in appropriate

cases to keep the subordinate courts within their bound of their

authority and not for correcting their errors. It is not permissible to

a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India to review or reweigh the evidence.

30. Reliance is also placed on Sandana Lodh v. National Insurance

Co. Ltd. reported at (2003)3 SCC 528 and more particularly at

para 7 which reads as under:

"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see

whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."

31. Further, reliance is placed on India Pipe Fitting Co. v.

Fakruddin M.A. Baker and Anr., reported in AIR 1978 SC 45 and

particularly at para 5 which reads as under:

"5. The limitation of the High Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution is well settled. Power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset conclusions of facts however erroneous those may be. It is well-settled and perhaps too late in the day to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath1 where the principles have been clearly laid down as follows:

"This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee2 to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors."

32. In the case of Classic Equipments (P) Ltd v. Johnson

Enterprises & ors. reported in 2010(2) RAJ 406(Del) and more

particularly at para 19 which read as under:

"19. It is no longer res intergra that the powers of the High Court: under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are very wide , however, the same are to be exercised not as a Court of Appeal , and the High Court should be slow to interfere unless there is grave miscarriage of justice".

33. In view of the facts of this case and settled position of law, I am of

the opinion that the trial court has considered and duly weighed all

material placed before it. I find no merit in the plea of the petitioner

that the trial court has erroneously included the income and assets

of the petitioner's father and the business in his own income and

assets. The plea of the petitioner that he is earning a paltry sum of

R. 16,400/- per month as director of a company appears to be

highly improbable in view of the status and the luxurious lifestyle

that the petitioner and respondent seemed to have enjoyed after

their marriage. I find no force in the submission of the counsel for

the petitioner that the expenses on boarding lodging and travelling

were incurred by the company. In today's highly competitive age it

cannot be reasonably expected that a company will be incurring

expenditure worth Lakhs per month for a director who is only

earning a sum of Rs. 16,400. Further, there appears to be force in

the submission of the counsel for the respondent that trial court

has rightly observed that it cannot be believed that a person

earning Rs. 16,400 will purchase a house in a posh locality with a

loan of Rs. 45 Lac. Additionally there appears to be a considerable

rise in the salary of the petitioner post the decree of divorce. All the

above factors if looked at in totality would show that the petitioner

has not disclosed his true income and the assessment arrived at by

the trial court is fair and just, and requires no interference.

Accordingly, I find that the petitioner has been suppressing his true

income only with the intent to deny the legitimate maintenance

due to the respondent and the minor child. It has been held by the

courts that the family business or family income may be taken into

consideration having regard to the facts of the case while deciding

the status of the parties and ultimately while deciding the

application for maintenance. Hence, the trial court has rightly lifted

the corporate veil and has rightly assessed the income of the

petitioner.

34. In view of the facts on the instant case and settled position of law I

find that there is no infirmity with the order of the trial court

awarding Rs. 50,000/-, per month, as maintenance to the

respondent (wife) and the minor daughter.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

MAY 30, 2011 msr//