Alimony should reflect the husband's actual income and the wife's perceived needs, typically ranging from one fifth to one third of the husband's net income.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present application bearing CAN 2 of 2024 has been filed by the respondent/wife in the appeal claiming alimony to the tune of Rs.1 lakh per month.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/wife contends that in a Civil Revisional Application which is still pending in this Court at the behest of the appellant/husband, the husband annexed personal information on the basis of affidavit-of-assets filed in the trial court wherefrom the husband is seen to have admitted his monthly income to be Rs.11,85,730/-.

3. The income tax paid, as disclosed therein, is Rs.11,63,969/- and the annual net income has been shown by the husband to be Rs.1,40,08,824/.

4. The said statements have been reiterated throughout the said affidavit and in the final analysis, the total monthly income has been shown by the husband in such affidavit to be Rs.11,85,730/-, in consonance with the personal information disclosed at serial no.45.

5. Thus, the monthly income now pleaded by the husband, which is to the tune Rs. 3 lakh per month with variable monthly bonus of Rs.2,73,000/-, is a gross suppression of the actual income of the husband.

6. It is next contended by learned senior counsel for the respondent/wife that in the self-same affidavit of the husband in the trial court, annexed to his revisional application which is still pending, both sons of the parties, who have been residing with the appellant/husband, are shown to be non-dependants of the husband.

7. In fact both said sons (twins), having attained majority since long, cannot be termed as dependants of the husband anymore.

8. Learned senior counsel next argues that the propositions laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, reported at (2021) 2 SCC 324, have not been adhered to in the present case inasmuch as the appellant/husband, in his affidavit-of-asset, has failed to disclose his income tax returns for the relevant period.

9. Moreover, bank statements have been disclosed only for three months instead of the three years as required under the said judgment of the Supreme Court.

10. That apart, it is argued that the respondent/wife has substantiated her requirements from the averments made in her application and her other pleadings and, having no independent income of her own, is entitled to alimony of at least Rs.1 lakh per month as claimed.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/husband, while opposing the application, points out that the monthly salary of the husband, as disclosed in the affidavit-of-asset filed in the present appeal, is Rs.3 lakh with monthly bonus of Rs.2,73,000/- which is an ad hoc payment based on projected business of the company where the appellant/husband works.

12. Thus, such monthly bonus is a fluctuating figure and cannot be a reasonable basis of ascertaining the monthly income of the husband.

13. Learned senior counsel next contends that the appellant/husband has several loan liabilities, including an HDFC Bank loan, which is a house loan, to the tune of Rs.82,62,784/- and a car loan with the ICICI Bank to the tune of Rs.1,85,544/-.

14. That apart, the student loans of the two sons of the appellant also have to be serviced by the appellant, which are respectively to the tune of Rs,14,14,808/- and Rs.20,17,835/-.

15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the husband also contends that the petitioner, as a partner of Ernst & Young LLP, has substantial expenses to be incurred.

16. Also, the husband has to pay Rs.2 lakh per month as EMI.

17. Next focusing on the averments of the respondent/wife/petitioner, learned senior counsel for the husband argues that the wife admittedly drew a monthly amount to the tune of Rs.10,909/-from January 21, 2024 to November 2, 2024.

18. Moreover, the total medical expenses for the wife for the year 2024 has been disclosed to be Rs.65,686/-approximately. However, despite the same, she has stated that her monthly medical expenses is Rs.55,000/- which is, thus, not credible.

19. It is argued th