GEETA SATISH GOKARNA Vs. SATOSJ SHANKARRAO GOKARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved by judgment dated 26th May, 1995 by mutual consent under Section 33 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955. There was also other consent terms included of which clauses 4 and 5 read as under:-

(2.) THE appellant herein for reasons disclosed in the application being Application NO. 122 of 1997 prayed that she be granted permanent maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of the application or such other date as this Court deems fit and proper. The application was filed on 4th September, 1997. In the application the appellant contended that after the marriage the appellant and respondent had been on tour of Europe and that the respondent had taken a premises on lease by paying monthly compensation at the rate of r=. 10,000/- per month. It was also pointed out that the respondent had two garages to keep his two Mercedes cars. It is then pointed out that the respondent is a professional architect and interior designer and has well furnished posh office at Peddar Road, a prestigious locality in Bombay. The respondent, it is contended also has an independent house in the locality known as opera House which belongs to the respondent and his parents. There is a Restaurant and the respondent and his family members are getting substantial amount as and by way of rent. To the best of her knowledge the income of the appellant would be in the vicinity of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs per month. The respondent, it is contended does not disclose his correct income to the Income Tax authorities to avoid the payment of higher taxes and filing returns for smaller amount than his actual income. The appellant further pointed out that she attempted to secure a job, but she has bean unable to do so. At the time of her marriage she was employed and gave up the same at the instance of the respondent here in.

(3.) THE respondent herein filed his reply. It is his contention that the appellant is employed and keeps on changing her job from time to time and as such cannot claim maintenance. The respondent further has stated that on the tour of Europe his friends Mr. and Mrs. Parikh accompanied them but he denied that the he met the expenses from his own pocket. It is pointed out that mr. and Mrs. Parikh were his friends. Considering the contention on behalf of the appellant that the consent terms were filed when she was not in a fit mental state it was pointed out that the consent terms were filed in the presence of her lawyers including her sister, who is a practicing Advocate and therefore the contrition that the consent terms were signed under pressure is false and misconceived. Her correspondence to him which is on record would also negate that contention. It is pointed out that the respondent could have easily got a divorce on the grounds of desertion, cruelty and other acts of the appellant and the only reason he agreed to a convent divorce petition was the assurance given by the appellant that she would not in future claim any maintenance from the respondent. The respondent admitted that he is Architect and Interior Designer, but that he suffered from a heart attack in April, 1991. As he could not fulfill his commitments to his clients his work suffered so also his income. The respondent denied that he owns any office at Peddar Road and stated that he has one car which is 37 years old. It is his case that he is living in a tenanted premises which are rented by his mother. Referring to leased flat it is pointed out that the respondent was paying Rs. 3,000/-per month and not Rs. 10,000/- per month and the applicant herself had signed the leave and license agreement. In so far as the garages is concerned, he is paying Rs. 500/- per month. It is also denied that the respondent has his own independent house and or restaurant. It is his further contention that between the period January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995 he had no income whatsoever due to his ill-health and due to the recession in the economy. Between 1st January, 1996 to December 31, 1997 the respondent's average income works out to approximately Rs. 8,500/- per month. For all the aforesaid reasons it is pointed out that the appellant is not entitled to any maintenance and the application ought to be rejected.