1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner wife challenges the order dated 13th May 2016 made by the Family Court at Bandra rejecting her application for interim maintenance.

4. Mr. Pai, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner had not suppressed any facts in her application dated 5th January, 2011 seeking interim maintenance, much less can it be said that she has suppressed any material facts. He points out that the petitioner had neither acquired any interest nor transferred such interest in flat No. 602 at Khar (Khar flat) as on 5th January, 2011. In any case, Mr. Pai submits that the petitioner's name was added to the agreement for sale along with that of her father and brother and ultimately the petitioner, gifted her so called interest in the Khar flat to her brother Vishal Thawani. He submits that all these facts were completely extraneous to the issue of maintenance and therefore the learned Family Court erred in denying the petitioner maintenance on the ground of alleged suppression of such facts.

5. Mr. Pai submits that the learned Family Court erred in holding that petitioner had failed to indicate break up of the expenses claimed by her. He submits that the learned Family Court also erred in holding that the petitioner being a able bodied person and a tutor must be presumed to have some source of income. He submits that the learned Family Court also erred in simply postponing the issue of interim maintenance to the final stage. He submits that the approach of the learned Family Court in the present matter was entirely improper and contrary to the well settled principles in matters of consideration of application for interim maintenance.

6. Mr. Pai submits that the learned Family Court also erred in observing that since the petitioner did not pursue the application for interim maintenance, the same could not be decided for a period of almost 45 years since the date of its inception. On the basis of such observation, which is in fact contrary to the record, learned Family Court further erred in inferring that the petitioner is/was capable of earning and did not require any interim maintenance. Mr. Pai submits that such approach is completely perverse.

7. Mr. Pai submits the voluminous material on record in relation to the income of the Respondent husband has been ignored by the learned Family Court. The impugned order is based on the considerations which are not relevant and at the same time, several relevant considerations which the learned Family Court was duty bound to take into account, have been completely ignored. Mr. Pai submits that on the basis of material on record and upon considering the life style of both the parties, the petitioner, is required to be awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 5 lacs p.m. and learned Family Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction by dismissing the application for interim maintenance in its entirety.

8. Mr. Ramani, the learned counsel for the respondent, defends the impugned order by pointing out that the learned Family Court has adverted to the correct principles and has rightly rejected the claim for interim maintenance. He points out that this was a clear case of suppression of the facts that the petitioner owned or had interest in a luxury apartment conservative valued Rs.6 crores and during the pendency of the proceeding, she transferred such interest in favour of her brother in order to press her claim for interim maintenance. Mr. Ramani points out that there is sufficient material which establishes that the petitioner's parents are extremely rich affluent and further even the petitioner has considerable income of her own as a tutor in French. He submits that all these relevant facts have been suppressed by the petitioner and therefore the learned Family C