In a strongly worded judgment, the Bombay High Court has increased the monthly maintenance payable by a Pune-based businessman to his divorced wife from ₹50,000 to ₹3.5 lakh, observing that he had deliberately concealed his true financial position.
A division bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan found that the man’s assertion of earning only ₹6 lakh annually was “farcical” considering his family’s large-scale business interests worth over ₹1,000 crore. The Court also ordered him to deposit ₹42 lakh in arrears within four weeks.
Background
The couple married in 1997 and separated in 2013 after 16 years of marriage. In 2023, a Pune family court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay ₹50,000 as monthly alimony. Both parties challenged this decision the wife seeking a higher amount, and the husband claiming financial incapacity.
The wife told the High Court that she had been struggling to raise their daughter alone, while her ex-husband continued living lavishly. He, however, insisted that his business earnings had reduced drastically post-COVID and that he had already “done his share.” He even claimed that a ₹50 lakh loan to the wife’s uncle compensated for maintenance dues, a claim the Court found baseless.
Court’s Observations
Rejecting his version, the bench said,
“He has not come to court with clean hands. There is suppression of financial strength and deliberate misstatement of facts.”
The judges noted that the businessman’s family owned several companies across construction, real estate, and finance and that he was presented publicly as a key figure in those enterprises. Yet, his tax returns showed a meagre income.
Justice Sundaresan remarked,
“By showing taxable income of just ₹6 lakh, he would have the court believe that his lifestyle runs on ₹50,000 a month. That is plainly farcical.”
The court also cited proof of luxury holidays, branded clothing, and transfers of crores between family accounts. It observed that several company records were withheld or delayed to obscure his real earnings.
Court’s Decision
Finding the original ₹50,000 order “grossly insufficient,” the bench ruled that the wife was entitled to a lifestyle proportionate to her husband’s means.
“She deserves dignity and the ability to provide her daughter the same standard of life enjoyed during the marriage,” the Court stated, also dismissing as “patriarchal” the husband’s argument that the wife should cut her daughter’s yoga and music classes.
Consequently, the High Court raised the maintenance to ₹3.5 lakh per month and ordered the businessman to clear all arrears within four weeks.
The wife appeared in person, while Advocates Dushyant Purekar and Rajat Dedhia represented the husband.