Point of Law: Maintenance to wife - wife does not qualify for getting alimony for herself within the contemplation of Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, since the wife has sufficient income to maintain herself. Moreover, adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the Trial Court against the wife for suppression of her income from the interests derived from her huge investments, fixed deposits and bank balance, which are betrayed by her admissions in evidence, coupled with the materials disclosed by the wife in and with her affidavit of assets.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:

1. The present revisional applications have been filed against the same order of alimony granted by the Trial Court, awarding Rs.1 lakh for the wife and the child from the date of the impugned order and litigation costs of Rs.40,000/-.

2. C.O. No.1169 of 2021 has been filed by the husband. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the wife suppressed her income. In the alimony application, the wife denied having any income but, upon the documents and affidavit-of -assets of the parties coming on record, it was revealed that the wife had several bank accounts. Pages 130 to 147 of the revisional application and pages 148 of 167 of the same are annexures reflecting the wife’s accounts respectively with the HDFC and the Kotak Mahindra Banks.

3. At page 129 of the revisional application, the wife’s Income Tax return indicates that her gross annual income is Rs.1,15,959/-, whereas the income from interest and investments, including a fixed deposit worth Rs.19,50,000/-, was suppressed in the IT returns, it is argued. The Kotak Mahindra Bank account has not been disclosed in the initial stages of the alimony application.

4. By placing reliance on the wife’s evidence on further affidavit, from pages 173 to 175 of the revisional application, learned counsel for the husband points out several admissions and evasive denials made by the wife, for which adverse inference ought to have been drawn against her, it is submitted.

5. At page 98 of the revisional application, the affidavit-of-assets of the wife disclose an admission of several instalments of previous payments made by the husband during the pendency of the alimony application as well. Hence, the wife is not entitled to alimony from the date of the application, in any event.

6. Learned counsel for the husband contends that the husband has been paying the educational expenses of the minor child of the parties all along and disclosed his income of around Rs.4 lakh per month in his affidavit-of-assets, particularly, at page 82 of the revisional application. However, due to the current pandemic situation, the condition of the husband’s business has deteriorated.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, reported at (2021) 2 SCC 324, in particular paragraphs 65, 72.8, 77, 78, 81 and 96 thereof, and argues that the alimony ought to be awarded from the date of the application only in the event of destitution of the wife.

8. In the present case, it is argued by the husband, the wife is not a destitute at all; rather, she has a lavish lifestyle. It is contended that the wife is residing with the minor child of the parties at the husband’s property located at Hindustan Park and the husband’s car is being used by the wife.

9. Moreover, the expenses shown for the child are inflated. Since the child is admittedly autistic, she is sent to school in the personal vehicle of the parties. As such, the charges shown for transport in the school vehicles are superfluous. That apart, it is reiterated that the husband has, all along, been providing the educational and medical expenses of the child.

10. Hence, learned counsel for the husband contends that the impugned order of alimony ought to be set aside. However, the husband is ready to bear the educational expenses as well as the medical expenses of the child of the parties, as and when required, directly to the school authorities and/or to the institutions where the child is being treated.

11. C.O. No.528 of 2021 is filed by the wife on the primary allegation that the Trial Court ought to have granted alimony not from the date of the order but from the date of the application. In this context, learned counsel places reliance on Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others, reported at (1997) 7 SCC 7 and contends that the wife, as held by the Supreme Court, is generally entitled to alimony from the date of application, unless there is any fault on the part