The main legal point established is that the evaluation of income for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should not be based solely on numerical figures from income tax returns but should include consideration of the party's movable and immovable properties.

1. This Petition is filed by the husband challenging the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 1st April 2010 for the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of his wife.

2. The husband is in business. The wife has no independent source of income. The husband runs three family businesses. These are shown on the Website of the husband as well as the Company. The husband owns a car and has purchased a share in a property which initially belonged to his joint family for his residence. The parties have been engaged and married in a five star hotel. The husband’s bank account shows large deposits and withdrawals. He pays separate electricity bills of large amounts of his residential premises. The husband also has Life Insurance Policy. He has several employees whose provident fund is paid and an immovable property for which property taxes and municipal taxes are paid. These are reflected in the supporting documents produced by the wife being his bank pass book, the employees provident fund book, the LIC Policy, the property tax receipt, municipal tax receipt, Website details etc.

3. The husband has not disputed the separate 3 or 4 businesses of the family in which he has a share. He has also not disputed the Website of the business concerns. He has instead sought to show his income under the income tax returns filed by him as also the company.

4. The determination of maintenance is dependent upon consideration of the Petitioner’s own income and the income of the Respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which runs thus:

“24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings – Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable”.

5. Upon considering the interim application for maintenance the wife is given a share in the income of the husband and not his properties. The husband, therefore, contends that only his income, as reflected in the individual income tax returns filed by him as also the returns of the businesses run by him, can be seen by this Court and the Family Court.

6. The Family Court has considered the aforesaid businesses, the expenses for purchase of movable and immovable properties the debit and credit entries in his bank account and the Website details of the Petitioner himself and his businesses to ascertain the approximate income of the Petitioner.

7. The ascertainment of the income has to be done judiciously and sensibly. It cannot be done arbitrarily or only arithmetically. The consideration of the income contemplated under the Section does not mean that only the numerical figures shown in the income tax returns of a party can be taken for the gospel. The husband contends, from his income tax returns which are shown to Court, that he earns approximately Rs.2 lakhs a year. This would constitute an income of approximately Rs.16,000/- per month. In this income the husband would not be expected to have the bank account that is shown to Court, the car which he owns, the share in the joint family property that he has purchased, the exports that he has made, the expenses for the electricity that he has paid or the property taxes that he has incurred or the employees whom he supports in several firms.

8. Details of four firms are provided by the wife and considered by the learned trial Judge. The biodata of the husband as well as Website details of the firms show the goodwill of the firm acquired since its establishment in 1963. This is reflected in the name of the firm