0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views23 pages

Abhishek S O Govindlal Kothari Vs Sujata W O Abhishek Kothari and Others On 22 October 2020

The document details a legal case between Abhishek Kothari and his wife Sujata regarding interim maintenance for their children during divorce proceedings. The Family Court had partially granted maintenance to the children while rejecting Sujata's claim for her own maintenance, leading both parties to file writ petitions challenging the court's decisions. The case highlights issues of financial disclosure, the responsibilities of both parents, and the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the respondent's income.

Uploaded by

8149381420
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
27 views23 pages

Abhishek S O Govindlal Kothari Vs Sujata W O Abhishek Kothari and Others On 22 October 2020

The document details a legal case between Abhishek Kothari and his wife Sujata regarding interim maintenance for their children during divorce proceedings. The Family Court had partially granted maintenance to the children while rejecting Sujata's claim for her own maintenance, leading both parties to file writ petitions challenging the court's decisions. The case highlights issues of financial disclosure, the responsibilities of both parents, and the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the respondent's income.

Uploaded by

8149381420
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 23

Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22

October, 2020
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari
And Others on 22 October, 2020

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

1 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY


NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2019

1) Sujata w/o Abhishek Kothari


Age - 42 years, Occ. Household,

2) Ananya d/o Abhishek Kothari


Age - 14 years, Occ. Student,

3) Adwait s/o Abhishek Kothari


Age - 12 years, Occ. Student, .. PETITIONERS

Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 thr. their


natural guardian Petitioner No.1 their mother

All R/o Plot No.166, Shivaji Nagar,


Flat No.D/4, 3rd Floor, Kanchan Vimal
Apartment, Nagpur - 440 010

...V E R S U S...

Abhishek s/o Govindlal Kothari


Age - 42 years, Occ. - Business,
r/o Opp, Agyaram Devi Mandir,
Subhash Chandra Bose Road,
Nagpur 440 018 .. RESPONDENT

AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1864 OF 2020
Abhishek s/o Govindlal Kothari
Aged about 41 years, Occ. - Business,
R/o Plot No. 170 - A, Kothari House,
Near Agyaram Devi Mandir,
Subhash Chandra Bose Road,
Nagpur 440 010 .. PETITIONER

Indian Kanoon - 1
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020

::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2020 06:24:


2 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt

...V E R S U S...

1) Sujata w/o Abhishek Kothari


Aged about 41 years, Occ. business
R/o Plot No.166, Flat No.D/4,
Third Floor, Kanchan Vimal Apartment
Shivaji Nagar, Opp. to Park, Nagpur - 440010

2) Ananya d/o Abhishek Kothari


Aged about - 14 years, Occ. Student,
Minor, and hence, through her mother
Sujata w/o Abhishek Kothari
Aged about 41 years, Occ. business.
R/o Plot No.166, Flat No.D/4,
Third Floor, Kanchan Vimal Apartment
Shivaji Nagar, Opp. to Park, Nagpur - 440010

3) Adwait s/o Abhishek Kothari


Aged about - 12 years, Occ. Student,
Minor, and hence, through her mother
Sujata w/o Abhishek Kothari
Aged about 41 years, Occ. business.
R/o Plot No.166, Flat No.D/4,
Third Floor, Kanchan Vimal Apartment
Shivaji Nagar, Opp. to Park, Nagpur - 440010 .. RESPONDENTS

Shri. R. R. Srivastava, Shri. S. H. Bhatia and Shri. Shrikant Yedlewar


counsel for petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in W. P. No. 7975/2019.

Shri. Deoul Pathak, Smt.Arpita Joshi Pathak and Shri. Abhijit


Deshpande counsel for sole respondent in W. P. No.7975/2019.

CORAM :- MANISH PITALE J.


RESERVED ON :- 24/09/2020
PRONOUNCED ON :- 22/10/2020

Indian Kanoon - 2
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/1
3 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt

COMMON JUDGMENT

These writ petitions are heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the rival
parties. (2) Both these writ petitions challenge order dated 23/10/2019 passed by the
Family Court No.2, Nagpur, whereby an application filed by petitioners in Writ
Petition No.7975/2019, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been
partly allowed. Writ Petition No.7975/2019 has been filed by the wife and children,
being aggrieved by rejection of her claim of interim maintenance during the pendency
of the divorce petition filed by her. Writ Petition No.1864/2020 has been filed by the
husband, being aggrieved by grant of maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month
to each of the two children from the wedlock. The parties are being referred to in this
judgment as per their status in Writ Petition No.7975/2019, for the sake of
convenience.

(3) The petitioner No.1 and respondent got married on 29/01/2001 at Nagpur and
they have two children.

4 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt There was marital discord between the
parties after some years of marriage, as a result of which legal proceedings were
initiated by them against each other. Respondent had filed a divorce petition against
the petitioner, which was dismissed in default in the year 2015 and the respondent did
not file any appeal against the same. The petitioner had initiated proceeding against
the respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, which was dismissed, but an appeal against the same is pending
before the Appellate Court. It is in this backdrop, that the petitioner filed a petition for
grant of divorce against the respondent in the year 2017, under Section 13(1)(i)(i-

a)(i-b)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said divorce petition the petitioner
filed an application under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act for grant of interim
maintenance during the pendency of the divorce petition, for herself and the two
children. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards interim maintenance
for herself and the two children. In the application for interim maintenance, the
petitioner claimed that the respondent had various sources of income and that
therefore, prayer made in the said application was justified.

Indian Kanoon - 3
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
5 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt

(4) The respondent appeared before the Family

Indian Kanoon - 4
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020

Court and resisted the prayers made in the said application for interim maintenance.
It was claimed that the house (apartment) in which the petitioner No.1 and children
were living was provided by the respondent. It was further submitted that since he
was taking care of the educational needs of the children and the petitioner was self
sufficient, the aforesaid application for interim maintenance deserved to be dismissed.
The parties filed affidavits and documents in support of their respective claims. (5) By
the impugned order dated 23/10/2019, the Family Court only partly allowed the
application for interim maintenance filed under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act. The
Family Court found that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands
as details of her financial status were not divulged at the outset before the Court and
on this basis her claim was rejected. The Family Court found that the children
deserved payment of interim maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month each and
accordingly the application stood partly allowed.

(6) The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7975/2019 challenging the said order. This
Court issued notice 6 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt in the said writ
petition on 04/12/2019. On subsequent date of listing a grievance was raised on behalf
of the petitioner that even the school fees of the children was not being paid and that
the amount as directed by the Family Court to be paid to the children was also not
paid. Thereafter, during pendency of the Writ Petition, the respondent paid the school
fees. On 23/06/2020 i.e. after eight months of passing of the impugned order, the
respondent filed Writ Petition No.1864/2020, before this Court challenging the
impugned order to the extent of grant of interim maintenance to the children. The said
Writ Petition was directed to be listed with Writ Petition No.7975/2019, filed by the
petitioner. On 25/08/2020, this Court found that on the one hand the respondent was
taking repeated adjournments before this Court on one or the other ground and on the
other hand he was in arrears of payment of maintenance amount granted to the
children. After taking into account some amounts that were paid by the respondent,
this Court directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner
within three weeks of the order, failing which Writ Petition No.1864/2020, filed by the
respondent, was directed to be dismissed without reference to Court. On 14/09/2020,
when the writ petition was listed before this Court, the respondent paid amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the 7 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt petitioner and this
Court recorded that the direction given in order dated 25/08/2020, stood complied.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were directed to be listed for hearing on
24/09/2020, on which dated they were finally heard by this Court. (7) Mr. R. R.
Shrivastav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
order, to the extent that it deprived the petitioner of grant of interim maintenance,
was wholly unsustainable and even the quantum of maintenance granted to the
children was on the lower side, considering the sources of income of the respondent
and the life style which the petitioner and the children were enjoying when the parties
were living together as a family. It was submitted that the petitioner had placed on

Indian Kanoon - 5
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
record October,
details 2020 accounts, as also income tax returns and other
of bank documents
showing number of foreign trips undertaken by the respondent and the lavish life style
he was enjoying, to indicate that the prayer made in the application for interim
maintenance was justified. It was submitted that the respondent was earning not only
from his business of travel and tourism, which was running for number of years, but
he also had huge rental income from various godowns and properties, apart from
handsome returns from huge investments made in mutual 8 / 30 01-Judgment WP
7975.19 &

Indian Kanoon - 6
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
1864.20.odt funds and other such instruments. It was submitted that details of such
sources of income were placed on record before the Family Court, but a perusal of the
impugned order would show that there was not even an iota of discussion on the same.
It was submitted that the Family Court erroneously rejected the entire claim of interim
maintenance of the petitioner on the alleged ground that she had not come with clean
hands before the Court, as she had allegedly suppressed certain details of her bank
accounts. It was submitted that the said approach was wholly inappropriate and
it was against the mandate of Section 24 of the aforesaid Act. (8) The learned counsel
for the petitioner relied upon various judgments of High Courts, including judgments
of this Court, to support the contentions raised in the petition. Specific reliance was
placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Shlokha Narendra Chhabria vs.
Narendra A. Chhabria (Judgment and order dated 07/12/2018 passed in Writ Petition
No. 594 of 2017). It was submitted that the Family Court ought to have followed the
dictum laid down in the said judgment while considering the application for interim
maintenance filed by the petitioner, but the impugned order demonstrated that no
such effort was made by the Family Court. On this basis it was 9 / 30 01-Judgment WP
7975.19 & 1864.20.odt submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside
and the application filed by the petitioner seeking interim maintenance for herself and
the children under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act deserved to be allowed in its
entirety.

(9) On the other hand, Mr. Deoul Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that the Family Court was justified in rejecting the claim of
interim maintenance of the petitioner as she had sought to mislead the Family Court.
It was submitted that she had claimed that she was jobless, while documents
brought before the Court on the insistence of the respondent, demonstrated that
she had regular income from content writing and that therefore, there was no
necessity for grant of interim maintenance to her. As regards grant of interim
maintenance to the children, it was submitted that the responsibility of the children
was equally that of the petitioner, which aspect the Family Court had erroneously
ignored, while passing the impugned order. It was submitted that the respondent
was ready to take care of the school fees of the children and therefore, the impugned
order deserved to be modified to that extent. It was further submitted that the
circumstances created by the COVID - 19 crisis ought to be taken into consideration
by this 10 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt Court, while considering the
writ petitions filed by the parties, because the business of the respondent had been
adversely hit and there was hardly any income of the respondent during the present
circumstances. The learned counsel for the respondent informed this Court that the
aforesaid judgment on which reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner i.e.
Shlokha N. Chhabria vs. Narendra Chhabria (supra) was subject matter of challenge
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the parties in that case had settled the
matter, as a consequence of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had disposed of the
appeal in terms of the compromise between the parties. It was fairly stated by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the said development did not mean
Indian Kanoon - 7
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
that the October,judgment
aforesaid 2020 of the High Court was set aside, but it was
submitted that
this aspect could be taken into consideration by this Court. Apart from this, the
learned counsel for the respondent relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226, Manish Jain vs.
Akansha Jain (2017) 15 SCC 801 and Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh and another
(2003) 10 SCC 228, to emphasize upon the factors that ought to be taken into
consideration by the Court, while considering an application under Section 24 of the
aforesaid Act.

Indian Kanoon - 8
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
11 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt (10) Heard learned counsel for the
rival parties and perused the material on record. Before considering the material on
record and the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, it would be
appropriate to consider Section 24 of the aforesaid Act and the approach expected
from the Court while dealing with applications made under the said provision. Section
24 of the aforesaid Act pertains to grant of interim maintenance pendente lite and
expenses of proceedings and applications under the said provision that can be made
by either the wife or the husband. The said provision facilitates either party to
approach the Court for grant of monthly amount towards interim maintenance and
payment of expenses of the proceedings, when it is demonstrated that such party does
not have independent income sufficient for meeting the said needs. It is relevant that
the said provision specifically requires the Court to consider the income of the
petitioner and that of the respondent, while passing appropriate orders. Thus, the
mandate of the said statutory provision is that the Court is required to consider the
material on record to reach a conclusion regarding the extent of income of the rival
parties and then to pass an order regarding right of the petitioner approaching the
Court for grant of interim maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings and
if so the quantum to be granted.

12/ 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt (11) In the case of Amarjit Kaur vs.
Harbhajan Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that once it is found
that the petitioner approaching the Court under Section 24 of the Act is found to
have no independent income sufficient for supporting his/her needs, the Court has to
grant of interim maintenance and the discretion thereafter left with the Court is only
with reference to the quantum to be granted.

(12)In the case of Neeta Rakesh Jain vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain (2010) 12 SCC 242, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although Section 24 of the Act confers wide
discretion on the Court, the section provides the guideline, inasmuch as while fixing
interim maintenance, the Court has to give due regard to the income of the
respondent and that of the petitioner. In the case of Manish Jain vs. Akansha Jain
(supra), the aforesaid dictum has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(13)In the case of Shlokha Chhabria vs. Narendra Chhabria (supra), this Court has
referred to various judgments on the question of grant of interim maintenance and by
setting aside order of the Family Court, direction was given to pay interim
maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month to the wife, in the facts 13 / 30 01-Judgment WP
7975.19 & 1864.20.odt and circumstances of the said case. In the said judgment, this
Court has taken into consideration the material on record indicating luxurious life
style of the respondent husband and the requirement to pass an appropriate order in
favour of the petitioner wife so that she is able to live life of about the same standard
that she was living with the respondent. This Court has also referred to judgment of
the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Hegde vs. Smt.Saroj Hegde [AIR 2007 Delhi
197], wherein factors required to be taken into consideration while deciding a claim of
Indian Kanoon - 9
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
interim October, 2020have been specifically stated. These are guiding
maintenance principles for
considering applications for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the said Act.

(14)At this stage it would be relevant to refer to judgment of this Court in the case of
Gananath Vishwanathan Shenoy vs. State of Maharashtra (Judgment and order dated
13/02/2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1027 of 2018), wherein
it has been held that dismissal of

Indian Kanoon - 10
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, would not be
relevant for denying claim of interim maintenance, when appeal against such dismissal
was pending. This becomes significant because, in the present case, it was 14 / 30 01-
Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt sought to be submitted on behalf of the
respondent that since the proceeding initiated by the petitioner under the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act had been rejected, the Family Court ought not
to have considered the application under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act regarding
interim maintenance. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has filed an appeal
against rejection of her application under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act and that the same is pending. Therefore, the said contention raised on
behalf of the respondent is rejected.

(15) Taking into consideration the aforesaid statutory provision i.e. Section 24 of the
said Act and the guiding principles evolved in judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it would be necessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the
impugned order passed by the Family Court. A perusal of the impugned order shows
that throughout the order, the Family Court has emphasized repeatedly only on one
aspect i.e. the petitioner having approached the Family Court with unclean hands and
thereby disentitling herself from consideration of grant of interim maintenance. It
appears that there were certain documents concerning one of the bank accounts of the
petitioner which were not placed on record and it was only after 15 / 30 01-Judgment
WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt specific directions were sought on behalf of the respondent
that such documents came on record before the Family Court. The said documents
indicated that the petitioner had intermittent income from certain publishers for
content writing. According to the Family Court, this was enough to deprive the
petitioner of any claim towards interim maintenance. The material on record shows
that the petitioner had placed on record detailed documents indicating the various
sources of income of the respondent and the life style enjoyed by him. But there is no
reference to the said documents and there is no analysis conducted by the Family
Court regarding the extent of income of the respondent, while rejecting the claim of
the petitioner, only on the ground of her having approached the Court with unclean
hands. At the same time, the Family Court has granted maintenance to the children by
directing the respondent to pay amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to each child. A
perusal of the impugned order shows that the approach adopted by the Family Court
is not in terms of jurisdiction expected to be exercised by the Family Court under
Section 24 of the said Act. This is because the said provision specifically mandates that
the Court has to take into consideration the income of the petitioner, as also that of
the respondent to come to a conclusion regarding entitlement of the 16 / 30 01-
Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt petitioner for maintenance and the quantum of
maintenance to be paid. In the present case, the Family Court has failed to analyze the
material on record either to come to a conclusion regarding sufficiency or otherwise of
the income of the petitioner or the extent of income of the respondent for deciding the
aspect of entitlement of the petitioner towards maintenance and the quantum of
maintenance payable to her. This is in the teeth of the aforesaid guidelines laid down
Indian Kanoon - 11
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
by the October,
Hon'ble 2020
Supreme Court in the above referred judgments with
regard to the
mandate of Section 24 of the aforesaid Act. It is surprising that the Family Court has
not analyzed the detailed material placed on record by the petitioner to show that the
respondent has various sources of income, including income from business, rental
income and returns from huge investments. There is no reference to even the income
tax returns of the respondent placed on record, thereby indicating that

Indian Kanoon - 12
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
the Family Court clearly erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner towards interim
maintenance.

(16) This Court is of the opinion that when the material pertaining to the bank
accounts and details of sources of income of the petitioner were indeed available
before the Family Court, even if some of the material came on record after specific
17 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt directions given by the Family
Court, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected without appropriate
analysis of the extent of income of the petitioner and the income of the respondent
from different sources. The approach adopted by the Family Court was, therefore,
wholly erroneous while rejecting the claim of interim maintenance of the petitioner.
(17) As a consequence, this Court has taken into consideration the material on record
regarding the income of the petitioner as well as the respondent to come to a
conclusion as to whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of interim maintenance and
if so to what extent.

(18)The material on record shows that the petitioner is living with two children in an
apartment which she claims was purchased by her with financial help from her
parents. Although the respondent denies the same and claims that the house and the
furniture therein was provided by him, the material on record does show that the
petitioner and the children do have a place of residence. In other words the petitioner
and the children are not required to pay rent for residential accommodation. The
bank account details of the petitioner, referred to by the Family 18 / 30 01-
Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt Court in the impugned order also show that the
petitioner seems to have had intermittent income for content writing. The material on
record does not show that the petitioner is having a regular job and a fixed regular
income. It appears that she has been paid some amounts by publishers for content
writing. The amounts, as noted by the Family Court appeared to be different on each
occasion and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has a steady source of
income.

(19) On the other hand, the material on record indicates that the respondent is
running business of tours and travel for a long period of time and there have been
large amounts of credits in the accounts of the respondent through such business.
Although the credit amounts placed on record show that crores of rupees have been
credited in various bank accounts maintained by the respondent during the course
of business, there is some substance in the contention raised on behalf of the
respondent that such receipts include transfers made by clients for booking air tickets
and tourist packages and further that salaries of employees are also required to
be paid by the respondent for running the business. Nonetheless, the credit of such
huge amounts has not been denied by the respondent. Apart from this, the petitioner
19 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt placed on record before the Family
Court, as also this Court, details of the various sources of the income of the
respondent. These include rental income from godowns, number of insurance and

Indian Kanoon - 13
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
other October,
policies of the2020respondent, as also returns from investments madein mutual
funds and other such instruments. The petitioner has also given details of seven credit
cards being used by the respondent and the luxurious life style enjoyed by him. The
respondent has not been able to deny such material either before the Family Court or
this Court. The material on record does show that the respondent is having vehicles
and properties showing that he is enjoying a luxurious life style. It is relevant that
while the respondent failed to abide by the directions given by the Family Court for
payment of interim maintenance to the children, in March 2020, he bought a brand
new

Indian Kanoon - 14
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
car, which fact is also not denied by the respondent.

(20) In the face of such material, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
sought to contend that this Court ought to take into consideration circumstances
created by the COVID-19 crisis and its adverse impact on the travel and tourism
industry, while considering the contentions of the rival parties. It was submitted on
behalf of the respondent that the 20 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt
business at present had been adversely affected and therefore, income of the
respondent to that extent has been reduced. It was further submitted that this Court
ought to take into consideration the income tax returns of the respondent placed on
record by the petitioner herself, which demonstrate that the income of the respondent
was not as high as claimed by the petitioner. On this basis it was submitted that since
the petitioner could support herself through her income, even the quantum of
maintenance granted to the children needed to be reduced. It was suggested that the
impugned order be modified to the extent that the respondent would pay the school
fees of the children and he would pay Rs.5000/- each per month to the children
towards interim maintenance. It was claimed that the impugned order of the Family
Court ought to be modified to that extent. (21) This Court is of the opinion that the
respondent has not been able to place any contra material on record to successfully
dislodge the material placed on record, on behalf of the petitioner, to indicate that the
respondent has various sources of income, that he is financially highly well placed and
that he is enjoying a luxurious life style. It is also settled law that when matrimonial
dispute arises and the question of grant of interim 21 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 &
1864.20.odt maintenance is to be considered by the Court, the quantum of
maintenance payable has to be determined by taking into consideration the fact that
the party claiming maintenance (in this case wife) deserves to be granted such
quantum of maintenance that would ensure that the said party is able to live the same
standard of lifestyle that such a party was enjoying when there were no matrimonial
dispute. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record to show that the
parties when living together were having a high standard of living and that even
today the respondent is living a luxurious life. This is a circumstance to be taken into
consideration by the Court, while passing order on the application filed under Section
24 of the said Act. The 11 factors identified by the Delhi High Court in the case of
Bharat Hegde vs. Smt.Saroj Hegde (supra) which have been referred to with approval
by this Court in its judgment in the case of Shlokha N. Chhabria vs. Narendra
Chhabria (supra), also deserve to be taken into consideration. The said factors are as
follows :-

"1. Status of the parties.

2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.

3. The independent income and property of the claimant.

Indian Kanoon - 15
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
22 / 30 October, 2020
01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt

4. The number of persons, the non applicant has to maintain.

Indian Kanoon - 16
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed
in the matrimonial home.

6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.

7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment
etc. of the applicant.

8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.

9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non applicant
when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

10. The non applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

11. The amount awarded under S. 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount
awarded under S.24 of the Act."

(22) Applying the aforesaid factors, it becomes clear that the Family Court in the
present case completely misdirected itself in not considering the detailed material
placed on record by the petitioner as regards various sources of income of the
respondent, indicating the status of the parties. The respondent cannot claim any
benefit of the circumstances created by the 23 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 &
1864.20.odt COVID-19 crisis from March, 2020 onwards to state that he is not liable
to pay any amount towards maintenance to the petitioner and that the quantum of
interim maintenance granted to the children needs to be reduced. This is because the
said crisis may have had adverse impact on the travel and tourism business run by the
respondent, but there is nothing to show that his other sources of income have been
adversely affected in any manner. As noted above, the material placed on record
shows that the respondent has substantial income from other sources like rental
income, returns on investments like mutual funds and other instruments and returns
from other properties also. The material on record does show that the life style of the
respondent has not been adversely affected by the aforesaid crisis at all and it is an
admitted position that even in March, 2020, the respondent purchased a brand new
car, while at the same time refusing to pay the extent of interim maintenance granted
to the children by the Family Court.

(23)The emphasis placed by the respondent on the income tax returns, to contend that
the extent of his income is not as high as claimed by the petitioner is also misplaced.
In case of Vinod Dulerai Mehta vs. Kanak Vinod Mehta [AIR 1990 BOMBAY 24 / 30 01-
Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt 120], this Court has taken judicial notice of the
fact that income tax returns filed by the husband are not conclusive and cannot be
taken as the sole guide for determining the entitlement of the wife towards
maintenance and that other considerations or material can be relied upon. In the
Indian Kanoon - 17
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
present case,October,
even 2020
the income tax returns on record indicate the various
sources of
the income of the respondent and they cannot be said to be material for rejecting the
claim of interim maintenance of the petitioner. The other detailed material placed on
record showing the various sources of income and the luxurious life style enjoyed by
the respondent does indicate that the respondent cannot

Indian Kanoon - 18
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
escape liability to pay reasonable amount of maintenance to the petitioner, to ensure
that the petitioner and the children are able to enjoy nearly the same standard of
living that they were enjoying when there was no matrimonial dispute between the
parties.

(24) This Court finds no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the
respondent in Writ Petition No.1864/2020, wherein the respondent seeks to deprive
the children of the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court. The material
on record also indicates that the respondent failed to pay even the amounts granted by
the Family Court to the 25 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt children and
it was after eight months that he challenged order of the Family Court, after he had
appeared in the writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court. It was only after
this Court passed specific orders that the respondent paid certain amounts towards
arrears of amounts payable to the children, thereby indicating the approach and
attitude of the respondent even qua his own children on the aspect of grant of interim
maintenance. It appears that the relations between the petitioner and respondent have
reached a state of extreme bitterness. There are serious allegations and counter
allegations made by the petitioner and respondent against each other. But this Court
refrains from making any comment upon the same, because these would be subject
matter of proceedings for divorce pending before the Family Court. In this proceeding,
this Court is concerned only with the impugned order passed by the Family Court
under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act.

(25) As noted above, this Court has found that the approach adopted by the Family
Court while rejecting the claim of interim maintenance of the petitioner, is wholly
unsustainable and it is in the teeth of not only Section 24 of the aforesaid Act, but the
26 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt guidelines laid down in that context
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in various judgments.

(26)Taking into consideration the material on record and upon applying the mandate
of Section 24 of the said Act, as also the guiding principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to interim maintenance,
after taking into consideration the intermittent amounts that she has earned
through content writing. Once this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to grant of
interim maintenance under Section 24 of the aforesaid Act as per the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarjit Kaur vs. Harbhajan Singh (supra),
the only discretion that remains with the Court is to decide the reasonableness of the
amount and quantum of interim maintenance payable to the petitioner. While
exercising such discretion the Court is expected to take into consideration the entire
material on record and some amount of guess work cannot be ruled out.

(27) In view of the above, taking into consideration the extent of income of the
respondent manifested by various sources of his income, this Court is of the
opinion that the 27 / 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt petitioner is
Indian Kanoon - 19
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
entitled to October, 2020 per month as interim maintenance. But, the fact
Rs.70,000/- that she has
been earning some amount from content writing cannot be ignored and therefore, a
sum of Rs.10,000/- per month deserves to be deducted from the said amount. This
Court finds that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the said Act
deserves to be partly allowed in her favour by directing the respondent to pay sum
of Rs.60,000/-

Indian Kanoon - 20
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
per month towards interim maintenance from the date of the application moved before
the Family Court. The quantum of interim maintenance granted by the Family Court to
the children does not deserve any interference, considering the extent of income of
the respondent from various sources and the needs of the children. The petitioner has
also failed to make out any case for enhancement of quantum of interim maintenance
payable to the children and this Court finds that the prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner for allowing her application filed under Section 24 of the said Act in its
entirety also cannot be granted.

(28) It is sad that due to the bitterness in the relationship between the petitioner
and the respondent, the children are also suffering. The respondent has paid certain
amounts towards school fees and arrears of maintenance, only 28 / 30 01-Judgment
WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt after specific directions given by this Court. The said
amounts need to be taken into consideration while calculating arrears payable to the
children in terms of the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

(29)In view of the above, Writ Petition No.1864/2020 filed by the respondent is
dismissed and Writ Petition No.7975/2019 filed by the petitioner is partly allowed as
follows :-

(1) Clause (2) of the impugned order rejecting interim maintenance payable to the
petitioner is quashed and set side.

(2) Clause (3) of the impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per
month each to the two children i.e. total Rs.40,000/- per month towards interim
maintenance from date of filing of the application i.e. 29/05/2017, is upheld and
confirmed.

(3) The respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month towards interim
maintenance 29
/ 30 01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt from the date of filing of the application
before the Family Court i.e. 29/05/2017 to the petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition
No.7975/2019.

(4) The arrears of interim maintenance amount upto October, 2020 payable to the
petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.7975/2019, shall be paid by the respondent to her
within a period of eight weeks from today. Similarly, the respondent shall pay arrears
of interim maintenance to the two children
i.e. petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 7975/2019, in terms of clause (3) of the
impugned order of the Family Court, within the aforesaid period of eight weeks. The
amount already paid by the respondent towards school fees and further amount paid
as per direction of this Court during pendency of the writ petitions shall be adjusted.

(5) The respondent shall regularly pay the amount towards interim maintenance to the

Indian Kanoon - 21
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
petitioners October,
in Writ2020Petition No.7975/2019, total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-per
month
(Rs.60,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.20,000/- per month each to 30 / 30
01-Judgment WP 7975.19 & 1864.20.odt petitioner Nos.2 and 3) by 5th of each month
from November, 2020 onwards.

(30)Writ Petitions are disposed of in above terms. All pending applications also stands
disposed of.

Indian Kanoon - 22
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/
Abhishek S/O Govindlal Kothari vs Sujata W/O Abhishek Kothari And Others on 22
October, 2020
JUDGE KOLHE/P.A.

Indian Kanoon - 23
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/120612731/

You might also like