NISHANT JAIN Vs. SHEFALI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. Appl. No.9437/2015 (Exemption)

(2.) Assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, counsel representing the appellant submits that the appellant has been unemployed since the year 2008 and since then he has no source of income either to sustain himself or his wife. Counsel also submits that the appellant is fully dependent for all his financial requirements on his parents. Counsel further submits that the appellant has placed on record various documents including his income-tax returns and also the income-tax returns of his father, statement of bank account, etc. in support of his stand that he has not been earning any income. Counsel also submits that the appellant has correctly disclosed all the particulars in the affidavit dated 27.01.2014 filed by him pursuant to the directions given by the learned Family Court. Counsel also submits that the learned Family Court has also failed to consider the fact that the respondent is a graduate and is earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by taking tuitions and she is also holding various bank accounts and is an income-tax assessee but she has concealed her income from the Court. Counsel also submits that the learned Trial Court has arbitrarily arrived at the conclusion to assess the income of the appellant at Rs.52,000/- per month taking into consideration the premium being paid by the appellant on his insurance policies and other assets which is in his possession and also the income earned from mutual funds. Contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court has ignored the fact that bonds and mutual funds were gifted to the appellant by his sister Rupali Jain, which matured in the year 2010-11 with the maturity value of Rs.7,59,566/-. Counsel further submits that in the balance-sheet placed on record by the appellant, Rs.18,19,228.98 was the opening balance as on 01.04.2012 but the amount of capital as on 31.03.2003 has been Rs.13,39,601.36/-, which was further reduced to Rs.3,32,747.94/-. Counsel also submits that the mobile set which was purchased by the appellant in the year 2011 was for a meagre sum of Rs.1910/-.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length and gone through the records. The appellant is also present in Court. This is a clear case of suppression of income by the appellant from the Court with the dishonest intention of not paying the interim maintenance to his wife. The stand taken by the appellant before the Family Court was that he has been unemployed since the year 2008. The appellant had married the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 11.12.2010 and as per the stand taken by the respondent in the divorce petition, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house on 03.08.2012 and since then she has been staying at her parental house. This period from 11.12.2010 till 03.08.2012 evidently shows that both the parties during that period had stayed together and certainly the appellant must have been able to maintain not only himself but his wife also. It is not the case of the appellant that his wife was employed as on the date of the marriage or had some independent income based on which he thought of running the expenses of his family. In the application filed by the respondent, the stand taken by her was that the appellant was a man of means with an income of Rs.2 lakh per month and she had prayed for an interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month in addition to her claim towards litigation expenses for a sum of Rs.55,000/-. In the reply filed by the appellant, he claimed that he had been unemployed since the year 2008 and since then he could not set up any business due to the paucity of space available and as such he had been dependent on his parents. He also claimed that in fact he is entitled to maintenance from his wife rather than the other way around. He prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application preferred by the respondent. The appellant had placed on record his detailed affidavit in compliance of the directions given by the learned Family Court and based on that the learned Family Court reached to the conclusion that the appellant has not truthfully disclosed his income and has taken a false plea that he has been unemployed since the year 2008. The learned Trial Court in para 12 of the impugned order observed that the material on record reveals that this appellant has not come clean on record and has tried to conceal material facts from the Court.