SUNIL HARISHBHAI PATEL Vs. BIJAL SUNIL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Advocate General appearing for the defendant firstly contended that under the provisions of the Act the Civil Court had no power to make an order for interim maintenance for there is no specific provision for passing such an order for interim maintenance. In support of his submission the learned Advocate General relied upon the decision in the case of G. Appanna v. G. Sheethamma A.I.R. 1972 Andhra Pradesh p. 62. As against that Shri H. J. Trivedi L.A. for the plaintiff relied upon :

(2.) In Vinod Dhulerai Mehta v. Kanak Vinod Mehta, 1990 1 D&MC 372 the Divisoin Bench of the Bombay High Court approved the approach of the Trial Court in that case where the Trial Court had in preference to the income-tax returns filed by the husband preferred to rely upon the other material going to show the riches and income of the husband. In that connection Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court said as follows. As is well known the income-tax returns do not reflect the true position of the income of the parties for several reasons and cannot be taken as the sole guide for determining in the proceedings such as the present one. In that case before the Bombay High Court for the wife and son aged 16 years maintenance @ Rs. 80 per month exclusively of electricity charges lift maintenance Society charges and regular tuition-fees for the child was granted and upheld. In that case there was evidence to show that the parties enjoyed a lavish style of living. They were occupying a large Flat admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. in a posh locality of Bombay and that they had three servants and the husband and the wife had the facility of chauffeur- driven cars provided from the pool of the Private Limited Company of which the husband was the Managing Director. The husband and his family members had substantial shareholding in the Concern which had large property at Andheri and a famous shop at Aurangabad. The husband alongwith his father had a shop and office-premises. The husbands family was in control of some Industrial Concerns as well. In the apartment of the parties there were various electrical household appliances and gadgets. On these facts the maintenance for the wife and the son as said above was granted and confirmed. What I point out is that the reliance placed by the defendant in the present case on the figures shown by him in the income-tax return cannot be the sole basis for deciding his income. The other material on the record clearly goes to show that the figures of income shown by the defendant in his income-tax returns would be an eyewash. The learned Judge of the Trial Court has rightly observed that if the defend ant was a typical middle-class man as he wants the Court to believe he would not have been able to live in the style as is apparent from the record he would not have been able to take his wife to the Foreign countries for very costly treatment for her infertility he would not have been able to have the medical services of the best Gynaecologist in Bombay for the treatment of infertility of the plaintiff he would not have been able to maintain a fleet of luxurious motor-cars many of which are imported he wound not have been able to live in a posh - pent-house described hereinabove. All these things would give a lie to the stand of the defendant that his yearly gross income is only to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000

(3.) Mr. Trivedi L.A. for the plaintiff relied upon the decision in the case of Chitra Sengupta v. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta A.I.R. 1988 Calcutta p. 98 and contended that as the defendant who has been called upon to produce the relevant documents of his income and assets has not produced the same an adverse inference be drawn against him and secondly on the basis of that decision he tried to contend that no less than Rs. 15 0 per month be fixed as the interim maintenance of the plaintiff in paragraph 9 of that Judgment in Calcutta case this is what has been observed by Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court :