ASHISH BHARTI Vs. MEETA SACHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the husband as also the wife are aggrieved by the order dated February 20, 2016 disposing of an application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, we shall be referring to the parties as the husband and the wife.

(2.) The learned Judge, Family Court has held that the net monthly income of the husband would be Rs.15,04,921/- out of which Rs.3,16,812/- per month on account of equated monthly instalments paid by the husband has been deducted. The wife, who is maintaining two children has been awarded Rs.5,86,143/- per month from the date of the application.

(3.) Succulently put the grievance of the husband would be: (i) while computing the monthly income of the husband non-recurring payments paid by the employer or recurring in nature but fluctuating each year such as shares of the company which were sold by the husband (non-recurring) and bonuses (recurring but fluctuating) have been taken into account with reference to the husband's statement of account for one year. (ii) The application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the wife in November 2012, but admittedly she stayed with the husband at the matrimonial house in Dubai till July 2015 and during this period the husband had borne the family expenses. Meaning thereby the maintenance could not be awarded for the period prior to July 2015. (iii) The conversion rate has been applied as of the date of the order ignoring that for prior periods the conversion rate was less. (iv) The learned Judge, Family Court has acted mechanically in apportioning the income pie overlooking the fact that the cost of living which the husband has to incur in Dubai is high. (v) Income of the wife in India has not been properly worked out. (vi) A presumptive interest income in sum of Rs.1,67,000/- per month has been wrongly added while computing the gross income of the husband. (vii) Payments being made by the husband for the two flats purchased in Dubai which are in the joint names of the parties has not been taken into account while computing the net disposable money in the hands of the husband. (viii) The learned Judge Family Court has not considered the bank statements of accounts of the wife, for instance in the year 2014-15 there is an inflow of about Rs.1,00,00,000/- and an outflow of about Rs.75,00,000/-. Large number of such entries numbering 180 in the account of the wife maintained with the State Bank of India have not been analysed. Even a presumptive analysis thereof would show that apart from interest income the wife is generating income and unless these entries are explained, it is the case of the husband that the wife is engaged in some business activity.