Ashish Bharti vs Meeta Sachdev on 27 January, 2017

2. The learned Judge, Family Court has held that the net monthly income
of the husband would be ₹15,04,921/- out of which ₹3,16,812/- per month
on account of equated monthly installments paid by the husband has been
deducted. The wife, who is maintaining two children has been awarded
₹5,86,143/- per month from the date of the application.

3. Succulently put the grievance of the husband would be: (i) while
computing the monthly income of the husband non-recurring payments paid
by the employer or recurring in nature but fluctuating each year such as
shares of the company which were sold by the husband (non-recurring) and

MAT.APP.(F.C.) Nos.42 & 52 of 2016 Page 2 of 15
bonuses (recurring but fluctuating) have been taken into account with
reference to the husband’s statement of account for one year. (ii) The
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the
wife in November 2012, but admittedly she stayed with the husband at the
matrimonial house in Dubai till July 2015 and during this period the
husband had borne the family expenses. Meaning thereby the maintenance
could not be awarded for the period prior to July 2015. (iii) The conversion
rate has been applied as of the date of the order ignoring that for prior
periods the conversion rate was less. (iv) The learned Judge, Family Court
has acted mechanically in apportioning the income pie overlooking the fact
that the cost of living which the husband has to incur in Dubai is high. (v)
Income of the wife in India has not been properly worked out. (vi) A
presumptive interest income in sum of `1,67,000/- per month has been
wrongly added while computing the gross income of the husband. (vii)
Payments being made by the husband for the two flats purchased in Dubai
which are in the joint names of the parties has not been taken into account
while computing the net disposable money in the hands of the husband.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply