DELHI HIGH COURT
S. Ravindra Bhat & Najmi Waziri, JJ.
Vikaas Ahluwalia —Appellant
versus
Simran Ahluwalia —Respondent
FAO 143 of 2013 and C.M. No. 4725 of 2013
Decided on 20.12.2013

IMPORTANT POINT
The Court, in considering an application for interim maintenance has to take into consideration the financial status of the parties, the earnings and the earning capacity of both the spouses. While granting maintenance, the spouse claiming maintenance should as far as possible be kept in the same status which he or she enjoyed while being in the matrimonial life with the other spouse.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act 1955 — Section 24 and 26 — Maintenance pendente lite — Family Court granted maintenance at Rs. 25000 p.m. as interim maintenance to wife in a pending divorce petition filed by husband — Appeal by husband — Court in considering an application for interim maintenance has to take into consideration the financial status of parties, earnings and earning capacity of both spouses — Spouse claiming should as far as possible be kept in same status which he or she employed while being in matrimonial life with other spouse — Documents on record substantiated that husband was working as director/Promoter in several Companies and had substantial shareholding in different group companies promoted by his father — No reason to interfere with order.

       Held: The Court, in considering an application for interim maintenance has to take into consideration the financial status of the parties, the earnings and the earning capacity of both the spouses. While granting maintenance, the spouse claiming maintenance should as far as possible be kept in the same status which he or she enjoyed while being in the matrimonial life with the other spouse. Also the family status is another aspect to be considered.

       Further, the Family Court went through, and closely considered, the documents that clearly substantiated that the husband was working as a director/promoter in several companies. Indeed, the husband does not deny ownership of substantial shareholding (to the extent of thousands of shares) in different group companies promoted by his father or other members of his family, nor the fact that he has a car provided by the company he works for. He has also submitted that he has offered a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the wife which was declined by her, and the affidavit filed by him discloses that he is salaried director and earns Rs.50,000/- per month and he has offered the same amount to his wife and his child. The Family Court, in our opinion, not unreasonably held that the true income of the appellant did not surface and efforts were made to hide the true income. The husband has submitted that he is a nominal share-holder in M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited. He filed the affidavit dated 30.02.2012 and also various certificates of different companies stating that he was only a nominee director of those companies without any remuneration. The affidavit dated 23.02.2012 shows that the husband owns a large number of shares in different companies and despite the fact that is not drawing any remuneration, this factum of ownership in itself demonstrates that he has a considerable amount of income.

       This wife has mentioned in her application the kind of lifestyle and status which she enjoyed during her stay with the husband. The wife has also mentioned the kind of lifestyle she and her daughter were used to during her marriage. The husband’s is a big business family and was ranked 167 in Super Rich list in 2010, and further she mentioned that she had a supervisor, cook, 3 helpers, two maids, one gardener, four drivers, one plumber and 24 hours security guards with Group 4 Security gun-man at her command. The house was equipped with various electronic gadgets. She has also mentioned the lifestyle to which her daughter was used to such as small swimming pool and swings installed in the house. To sum up their house contained all five-star facilities.

       The submission of the husband that this Court should accept the determination for interim maintenance in the maintenance suit is no doubt attractive. By that order, the Court directed the husband to pay Rs.75,000/- per month as maintenance. However, the Court had, at the same time, directed that the wife and child should be provided with a chauffeur-driven car, as well as provided a quantity of petrol and their health care needs be provided by the husband. Having regard to the overall conspectus of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the determination of Rs.1,25,000/- as maintenance by the Trial Court in this case does not suffer any infirmity. It is also a settled proposition that the highest amount determined as maintenance should be paid by the spouse required to do so. (Paras 15, 18, 21 and 22)

       Result: Appeal dismissed with Costs