Can’t rely on I-T returns alone while deciding a maintenance plea, says HC

October 10, 2017

The Bombay High Court allows a maintenance plea filed by Pinky Mahendra Kumar Jain, aged about 38 years, seeking increase in the amount of maintenance awarded by the family court. The plea also challenged the order of the family court dated May 5, 2016, filed under S.125 of CrPC wherein an interim maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000 each was awarded to the petitioner and her two minor children. Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi hearing the petition said “ Whatever income is given to the Income Tax authorities in the 'returns' may not be necessarily reflecting the true picture...the court has to take into consideration the lifestyle of parties and all the other aspects.” The court noted that the “ husband has made every attempt to conceal his real income to avoid the payment of maintenance.” The aggrieved wife approached the high court for enhancement of the monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 that a family court had awarded her and their two minor school-going kids on her maintenance plea. In the present case the family court ought to have awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs 2 lakh per month, as husband's family was into a “ gold and silver business” with a shop in south Mumbai. The husband Mahendra Pukhraj Jain, aged about 38 years, pleas that he was an “ employee'' in a family-run shop and earned & quot not more than Rs 20,000” monthly. In its order, the family court passed last May had relied on his I-T returns. But the HC observed that various assets mentioned by him in 2011 reveal that he holds “ securities and assets” and the returns “ reflect that he and his family is...earning substantial income.” The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in Manish Jain vs. Akansha Jain : “ It has become a matter of routine that as and when an application for maintenance is filed, the non-applicant becomes poor displaying that he is not residing with the family members, if they have a good business and movable and immovable properties, in order to avoid payment of maintenance. Courts cannot, under these circumstances, close their eyes when tricks are being played in a clever manner.” Similarly, in the present matter also the respondent husband made every attempt to conceal his income in order to avoid paying maintenance for his two children and their mother, but the court allowed the plea and increased the maintenance sought. Therefore, taking the expenses into account associated with two school-going children, the court allowed the petition enhancing the monthly maintenance amount to Rs. 10,000.