REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5660 OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007)

Neeta Rakesh Jain

…. Appellant

Vs.

Rakesh Jeetmal Jain

….Respondent

JUDGMENT

R.M.LODHA,J.

Leave granted.

2.

The order dated September 21, 2006 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate Side), which fixes the

interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12000/- per month pending

appeal, is under challenge at the instance of the wife – appellant in

this appeal by special leave.

3.

The parties were married on May 8, 1995. The

respondent-husband petitioned for divorce under Section 13 (1) (ia)

and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, `the Act’) on the

ground of cruelty and desertion against the wife. The Principal

Judge, Family Court No. 5, Pune, passed an ex-parte decree on April

7, 2005 dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of

cruelty. The wife has preferred an appeal before the Bombay High

Court challenging the ex-parte decree. The appeal has been

admitted. On July 18, 2005 an ad-interim order was granted staying

the operation of the ex-parte decree. The husband was also

restrained from re-marrying until further orders. The ad-interim stay

order is operative although the husband has informed the High Court

that on July 22, 2005 he had re-married. The factum of re-marriage

has been disputed by the wife before the High Court.

4.

The wife made an application (Civil Application No. 107 of

2006) for direction to the husband to pay to her interim maintenance

of Rs. 50,000/- per month. In that application it was stated that

husband’s income is Rs. 2,00,000/- per month approximately. It was

stated that the husband is a highly qualified person; he is Chartered

Accountant (CA) and has also passed Cost and Works Accounts of

India (ICWA). He passed Chartered Institute of Management

Accountants (CIMA), U.K., examination in May, 1999 and also

completed course of Computer Information Technology. According to

wife, at the time of marriage the husband was working with M/s.

Kalpataru Constructions at Mumbai drawing a salary of Rs. 40,000/-

per month; in 1996 he changed his job and was appointed as Finance

Manager with M/s. Kimberly Clark, Pune (a multi-national company)

at double the salary and in May, 1998 he joined a highly reputed

software company, namely, M/s. Tata Technology on substantially

increased salary. In 1999, the husband was sent to Sri Lanka by the

company as a Senior SAP Consultant where he was entitled to a

chauffeur driven Toyota Van and a large bungalow to live. He

returned to Pune in August 1999. At that time his monthly income

was about Rs. 1,50,000/-. The wife averred that somewhere in the

month of January, 2000 the husband started his own company in the

name and style of M/s. Paysquare Consultancy Limited at Pune and

engaged several computer and IT engineers, chartered accountants

and MBAs as employees. As regards her own income, the wife

stated that she did not have any independent source of income and

was pursuing her studies of Ph.D. at the mercy of her elder sister

who has been supporting her since 2001.

5.

The husband responded to the application by filing his

affidavit. Substantial part of the reply affidavit deals with the

proceedings before the Family Court. As regards his income, he

stated that he joined the service with M/s. Kalpataru Constructions as

an entry level job with a total income of Rs. 7,000/- per month.

According to him, his salary in M/s. Kimberly Clark was Rs. 15,000/-

per month while his salary in M/s. Tata Technology was Rs. 20,000/-

per month. He stated that having worked for six years, he decided to

start on his own and put all his savings in the company – M/s.

Paysquare Consultancy Limited. He also stated that he was not the

sole owner or