VAIBHAV HARSHAD SHAH Vs. POOJA VAIBHAV SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions take exception to the order dated 28/01/2019 passed by Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai whereby an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) praying for maintenance pendente lite came to be allowed.

(2.) Wife has questioned the same order of award of maintenance claiming enhancement whereas husband claimed that award of maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month is beyond his known source of income and is on much higher side.

(3.) Shri. Desai, learned counsel counsel for the husband would urge that the order of the Family Court in exercise of powers under Section 24 of the Act is based on inadmissible evidence, such as printout of Facebook account of the husband. According to him, Court committed an error in discarding the income tax returns of the husband which is admissible in evidence. He would further claim that so as to justify the maintenance, a break up was given by wife and in any case, award of maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month cannot be justifed from such statement of expenses/break up. He would further claim that Section 24 of the Act contemplates award of maintenance which is necessary to meet the expenses of the proceedings and to meet the minimum necessary needs. He would draw support from very language of Section 24 of the Act and also Judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta and the Judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Rajesh Burmann Vs. Mitul Chatterjee (Burman) in an Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14183 of 2007 particularly paragraph 26. According to him, as such, award of maintenance is on much higher side as income of the petitioner-husband in the income tax returns speaks of around Rs. 2,58,157/- per annum i.e. approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month.