LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-54

RAMAN BAWA Vs. AMIT JAIN

Decided On December 10, 2015
Raman Bawa Appellant
V/S
AMIT JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision is at the instance of the wife against interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month granted to her in matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband. The wife complains that the amount assessed by the Court below is not adequate and not keeping with the status of the parties.

(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner would contend that the husband is associated with a company which is a closely held by the family members that manufactures various consumer products like staplers, staple removers, paper punches, scissors, carbon paper etc. The company is called Kangaroo group which supports a huge industrial infrastructure. The market presence that the company obtains for the last five decades making Kangaroo and Munix the most trusted brands and known throughout India and the company makes profit in several crores of rupees of which the husband has a sizeable share. The learned Senior Counsel would point out the statements showing sales, net profit before tax and net profit after tax for various assessments from the years 2011 to 2014. It would seem that Kangaro Industries Ltd. had a net profit after tax at Rs. 12.01 crores for the year 2012, Rs. 10.51 crores for the year 2013 and Rs. 21.70 crores for the year ending with 31.03.2014. The share holding of the husband is reported to be 50% for the years 2011 and 2012 and in view of the pendency of the proceedings and in anticipation of the claim by the wife against her maintenance, the husband has actually off-loaded all the shares and has made it appear as though he is not any longer having any stakes in the company. The reserves in surplus of the company in the year 2014 is reported to be Rs. 47.03 crores. In the sister company Munix India Private Limited, the net profit after tax in the year 2011 was '9.37 crores which gradually has increased to Rs. 16.52 crores for the year ending with 31.03.2014. The percentage of shares held by the husband for the year 2011 was 40% and for the year 2012 was 40% but they have been shown as nil in the year 2013 and 2014. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_54_LAWS(P&H)12_2015_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The contention of the wife is that the husband has deliberately made transfers of his shares to make it appear as though he is not possessed of sufficient means to maintain her. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband would contend that he has no holding in the company right now and many of the cars which the wife has shown as belonging to the husband are not really the assets of the husband. On the other hand, they are the properties of the companies. It was also stated that the petitioner is actually residing in the very same house and she is being well taken care of and the amount of Rs. 40,000/- already assessed is adequate. It is also the contention that the relief of maintenance cannot be provided to her without minding the actual ground taken by the husband in the petition for divorce. It is contended that the wife had been guilty of matrimonial wrong in having relationship with a person other than the husband and that therefore, she was not even justified in claiming any maintenance. According to learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the wife's conduct must be taken note of before any maintenance is granted. The Senior Counsel would also state that the maintenance that can be awarded during the pendency of proceedings ought to be realistic and cannot be a windfall or a lottery for the wife to take.