MYRA JOSEPH BRAZ DIAS Vs. JOSEPH BRAZ DIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Order dated 19th April 1991 passed in Notice of Motion No. 1753 of 1990 in M. J. Petition No. 626 of 1990, Variava, J. , directed the husband to pay the wife Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 10,000/- towards the costs, and issued a direction that the arrears upto March 1991 together with the sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid within eight weeks from the date of the order. The husband and the wife have come up in appeal, the former by Appeal No. 867 of 1991 and the latter in appeal yet to be numbered.

(2.) THE learned Judge found the income of the husband to be in the region of Rs. 3,500/- per month. In reaching that tentative figure, the learned Judge had reckoned: (a) the possible balance in the hands of the husband out of a sum of Rs. Two lakhs received by him as retiral benefit, in 1981, (b) the sale proceeds of the building at Dadar, a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- (c) rent of the building at Bandhra, (d) the income from the Bangalore premises of J. B. Enterprises (the wife has a case that J. B. stands for a first letters of the name of the husband Joseph Braz ). The husband has a case that he had rented out that building, the lease deed having been signed by Barbara knight. (There are materials to indicate that she was to serve him as a servant on a salary of Rs. 300/- per month ).

(3.) THE learned Judge computed the rate of interest that could be earned on investment, at the rate of 9% per annum. This is a serious ground of attack in the appeal of the wife. There is considerable force in that argument. The latest notification of the Reserve Bank has enhanced the Bank rate as 12%. The actual levy of interest when amounts are lent, go as high as 21%, if not more, even in the case of nationalised Banks. An upward revision in the rate of interest is definitely justified in the above circumstances. Having regard to the prevarication, prima facie disclosed on the part of the husband, there is justification for an increase in the income under other heads as well. He had not been candid to the Court in relation to the sale of the Dadar property. The Bangalore property and the business carried on there, according to the wife, is still under a smoke screen in relation to the actualities of business and realisable income. When basic fact of ownership is admitted, it was for the husband, who was in the full know of the details, to assist the Court with relevant details. He has chosen to suppress such materials. An adverse inference would be prima facie justified.