A.K. Menon, J.

By this common judgment we dispose of both the Family Court Appeals and the Civil Applications taken out therein taken out therein. These appeals arise from the judgment and decree of the Third Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-264 of 2002. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce whereby the marriage solemnised between the wife (referred to as "Respondent") and the husband (referred to as "Petitioner") on 19.5.1993 was dissolved by the decree of divorce and the Petitioner husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the Respondent wife towards maintenance and further a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to their daughter. The Respondent has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

FACTUAL OVERVIEW:--

2. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was an arranged marriage. After the marriage the Respondent proceeded to reside with the Petitioner in Nigeria. Both the parties are from business families. The Petitioner husband was at all the material times a resident of Lagos, Nigeria. There he initially worked for gain. Thereafter, set up his own business with local support. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner owns and controls the business in Nigeria. The Petitioner, on the contrary has contended that he does not own or control the business and that he has only 30% stake in the business and remaining 70% being controlled by Nigerian partners. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner had a lavish life style and is extremely wealthy and therefore, the Family Court ought to have granted maintenance namely in the sum of Rs. 70,000/- per month each to the Respondent and their daughter Ayesha.

3. In Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2008, the Petitioner - husband has challenged the order of maintenance on the ground that the Respondent-wife is wealthy. She was Director in three companies in Singapore and drawing a sum of Rs. 1 lac per month by way of Director's fees and also receiving separately, accommodation compensation. The Respondent wife was engaged in the family business of her father which is evident from the records produced. According to the Petitioner, the documentary evidence produced revealed that the Respondent has substantial finances of her own and has suppressed her banks accounts and income. It is an admitted position that there is a trust known as "Vanita Trust" and the Respondent was the beneficiary of the said trust. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent has deliberately suppressed her income and her financial status, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. The Petitioner also accused the Respondent of having withdrawn a sum of USD 53,692.51 from a joint account in OCBC Bank, Singapore in the year 1998, by prematurely closing a fixed deposit held in their joint names and transferring the fund to a company M/s. Saniva International (PTE) Ltd. Singapore. It is in this background that the present litigation has been contested.

PLEADINGS AND CONTENTIONS:

4. The Family Court Petition No. A-264 of 2002 was filed by the Petitioner - husband in January 2002 i.e. little over nine years after marriage took place on 19th May, 1993. The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that after the marriage, the parties stayed together at Lagos, Nigeria. The daughter named Ayesha was born on 13th April, 1994. It is the case of the Petitioner that the marriage was solemnised only after the Respondent agreed to settle in Lagos where he was working for the gain. It is the Petitioner's case that soon after birth of their daughter the Respondent's behavior changed. She became arrogant, abusive, defiant and was beyond control of the Respondent. It is alleged that the Petitioner would use foul language and was abusive towards the Respondent and his family members. The Respondent came back to India along with their daughter Ayesha sometime in February 1994. In August 1997, on an occasion of birth of child, a son to his only sister Jyoti, the Respondent a