Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This application is filed by the appellant of Family Court Appeal No.60 of 2015. The Family Court, Mumbai, disposed of a Petition filed by the husband for divorce and the application filed by the wife for maintainance by a common judgment dated 11.9.2014. By the said judgment, the learned Judge granted a decree of dissolution of marriage. The husband was directed to pay monthly maintainance of Rs.20,000/- to the wife from the date of the cam.130.2015_R.doc petition. The husband had made incidental prayers which also came to be dealt with by the Family Court, in the said judgement, with which we are not presently concerned. The judgment in question gave rise to cross appeals. The present appeal is filed by the wife seeking enhancement of permanent maintainance. In the Civil Application, the prayers made are for providing interim maintenance pending appeal at enhanced rate as well as for preventing the respondents from disposing off or creating third party rights in any manner in one flat situated at 901, Strata Tower 4, Planet Godrej Society, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai (for short, 'the said flat'). Respondent No.1 is the husband. Respondent No.2 is a major son of the couple. He has been joined in connection with the prayer against disposal of or creating charge over the said flat.

2. Before the Family Court, the wife had prayed for maintainance from the husband claiming that she had no independent source of income and that the husband had sizeable regular income. He had large investments in mutual funds. He had also purchased immovable properties. It was averred that the husband had several bank accounts in which he had sizeable balance. It was pointed out that the husband was earning cam.130.2015_R.doc substantial regular income from his jobs. Later on, he had started his own consultancy company from where he would earn regular income. The Family Court in the impugned judgment had observed that both sides had not produced full details of their earnings. Nevertheless, the Court was persuaded to award maintainance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife. In the Civil Application, the applicant has prayed that the husband be directed to pay an enhanced sum of Rs.55,000/- per month towards maintainance pending the appeal.

3. Another prayer made is to direct the respondents not to transfer, alienate or create any charge over the said flat. In this context, the applicant would point out that to frustrate the wife's right of residence and also to frustrate her right of maintainance, the husband had with malafide intentions gifted the said flat to his son under a Deed dated 29.8.2012. At the same time, on 29.8.2012 itself, the son gave a General Power of Attorney to the father in relation to the said flat authorising him to deal with the said property in any manner whatsoever including to sell, exchange or mortgage or to lease out the said property. It is in this context that respondent No.2 has been joined in the Civil cam.130.2015_R.doc Application.

6. In the context of prayer for restraint against the disposal of immovable property, the Counsel submitted that in order to frustrate the wife's right to residence and permanent maintainance, the husband had with a malafide intention shown to have gifted the said flat to his son. At the same time, the son had given power of attorney to the father to deal with the said property absolutely in any manner. The gift deed is thus, a sham transaction and should be ignored.

7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the husband opposed the application contending that the Family Court has cam.130.2015_R.doc given proper reasons for awarding limited maintainance. No case for enhancement is made out. The wife had her own source of income which she had not revealed before the Court. She had not produced full details of her bank accounts, nor had she produced Income Tax returns. He relied heavily on the bank statements to contend that there was a sizeable balance in the bank accounts, indicating source of income which she had not revealed to the Court. He submitted that the husband had left his job and started his own business. The Income Tax returns before and after starting the new business are on record clearly indicating sharp decline in his income. He further submitted that later on, the husband had developed heart ailment forcing him to slow down his activities. The said flat was gifted to his own son since the son did not have any immovable property. Both of them are residing in the same flat. The power of attorney is given only for convenience.