VANITA ANIL KRIPALANI Vs. ANIL PARSRAM KRIPALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment we dispose of both the Family Court Appeals and the Civil Applications taken out therein taken out therein. These appeals arise from the judgment and decree of the Third Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No.A-264 of 2002. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce whereby the marriage solemnised between the wife (referred to as "Respondent") and the husband (referred to as "Petitioner") on 19.5.1993 was dissolved by the decree of divorce and the Petitioner husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the Respondent wife towards maintenance and further a sum of Rs.25,000/- to their daughter.

(2.) The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was an arranged marriage. After the marriage the Respondent proceeded to reside with the Petitioner in Nigeria. Both the parties are from business families. The Petitioner husband was at all the material times a resident of Lagos, Nigeria. There he initially worked for gain.

(3.) In Family Court Appeal No.128 of 2008, the Petitioner husband has challenged the order of maintenance on the ground that the Respondent wife is wealthy. She was Director in three companies in Singapore and drawing a sum of Rs.1 lac per month by way of Director's fees and also receiving separately, accommodation compensation. The Respondent wife was engaged in the family business of her father which is evident from the records produced. According to the Petitioner, the documentary evidence produced revealed that the Respondent has substantial finances of her own and has suppressed her banks accounts and income. It is an admitted position that there is a trust known as "Vanita Trust" and the Respondent was the beneficiary of the said trust. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent has deliberately suppressed her income and her financial status, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance.