Bombay High Court Increases Maintenance for Divorced Wife by 7 Times After Uncovering Husband's Concealed Wealth
The Bombay High Court has significantly increased the maintenance amount for a divorced wife after discovering that her husband had concealed his substantial wealth, which includes a family business empire worth over ₹1,000 crore.
Bombay High CourtMaintenance IncreaseDivorceConcealed WealthReal EstateReal Estate NewsNov 12, 2025
The husband was also ordered to deposit ₹42 lakh as a year's arrears within four weeks. The court stated, “He has not come to Court with clean hands. There is not only material suppression of his financial strength to undermine the application of legal principles for considering the quantum of maintenance, there are also positive misstatements in his claims to be a person of poor means unable to pay even the low maintenance originally granted.”
The couple married in 1997 and lived together for 16 years before separating in 2013. In February 2023, a family court in Pune granted a divorce to the husband on the grounds of cruelty and fixed permanent alimony at ₹50,000 per month. Both parties appealed the decision—the wife sought an enhancement of maintenance, while the husband sought to cancel the maintenance, claiming he lacked the means to pay.
The wife argued that she was struggling to raise their daughter alone and that the husband was a “chronic defaulter” who continued to live extravagantly. The husband, on the other hand, claimed that his income had dwindled post-COVID and that he had “already paid enough.” He also argued that a ₹50 lakh loan given to the wife's uncle effectively compensated her maintenance dues.
Rejecting his plea, the High Court found that the husband's portrayal of financial distress was “farcical.” The Bench noted that his family ran multiple real estate, construction, and financial services businesses with a combined worth over ₹1,000 crore. The husband was publicly described as the “torchbearer” of the business group on the group’s website. Justice Sundaresan wrote, “By pointing to his Income Tax Returns to show taxable income of just ₹6 lakh annually, he would have the Court believe that his lifestyle is financed by ₹50,000 per month. On the face of it, the import is farcical.”
The court observed that the husband's income tax filings and property declarations did not reflect the true extent of his wealth. His share in family enterprises, transfers of ownership among brothers, and lavish personal spending all indicated he was a man of considerable means. The judgment also cited multiple examples of his affluent lifestyle, including photographs of a birthday party with “free-flowing alcohol” and luxury Kenzo T-shirts, foreign holidays to destinations such as Macau, and expenses for his son’s education abroad.
The court stated, “We must hasten to add that to our minds, there is nothing to be judgmental or inappropriate about throwing a milestone birthday party with free-flowing alcohol, or the donning of expensive top-of-the-line luxury brand T-shirts at the party. What does not appeal to us in forming our judgment, is the act of contemporaneously lying on oath about being a man of no means, earning just Rs. 6 lakhs per annum.”
The Bench also noted evidence of transfers exceeding ₹10 crore from the husband’s accounts to his brother’s and observed that companies under his control delayed filing financial statements until after the family court’s verdict. It was also found that his claim that the family home was sold was contradicted by the continued use of that address in court documents.
Thus, the family court failed to appreciate the financial power that underpinned the couple’s marital lifestyle, the Bench ruled. “She is entitled to lead a life of dignity and provide her daughter a life of dignity. A sum of ₹50,000 per month is hardly a reasonable or logical quantum of maintenance.”
The court also criticized the husband’s argument that a separated woman should cut down on her daughter’s extracurricular expenses for yoga, violin, and baking classes, deeming it patriarchal. “The contention is that a woman divorced from her husband should curtail what her daughter should get but a woman choosing not to leave her husband can expect more. That a mother dares to work hard and even claim to depend on her own brother to give the daughter (who is as much Mukesh’s offspring) a decent life, cannot be a disqualification for expecting that the daughter’s expenses for a decent standard of living be met by the father, commensurate with his own standard of living and more importantly, the parents’ joint standard of living when the marriage had lasted.”
Hence, the court dismissed the man’s appeal while enhancing the compensation payable to the divorced wife. The wife appeared in person, and the husband was represented by Advocates Dushyant Purekar and Rajat Dedhia.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the initial maintenance amount ordered by the family court?
The initial maintenance amount ordered by the family court was ₹50,000 per month.
By how much did the Bombay High Court increase the maintenance amount?
The Bombay High Court increased the maintenance amount from ₹50,000 to ₹3.5 lakh per month.
What did the court find about the husband's financial status?
The court found that the husband had concealed his substantial wealth and that his family ran multiple real estate, construction, and financial services businesses worth over ₹1,000 crore.
What were some examples of the husband's lavish lifestyle mentioned in the judgment?
The judgment cited examples such as photographs of a birthday party with free-flowing alcohol, luxury Kenzo T-shirts, foreign holidays to Macau, and expenses for his son’s education abroad.
Why did the court criticize the husband's argument about the daughter's extracurricular expenses?
The court criticized the husband's argument as patriarchal, stating that a woman should not be expected to curtail her daughter's extracurricular expenses simply because she is divorced.
Related News Articles
Understanding Long-Term Capital Gains Tax on Real Estate: Clarification on Acquisition Cost
The I-T department has provided clarity on the acquisition cost of real estate properties purchased before 2001 for LTCG calculations, which is now taxed at 12.5%.
Ajman Ruler Inspects Expansion of Ajman Hotel Project
His Highness Sheikh Humaid bin Rashid Al Nuaimi, the Ruler of Ajman, recently visited the site of the Ajman Hotel expansion project. The project, managed by Ajman Real Estate Corporation (Aqar), includes the construction of 13 new villas, 12 suites, swimm
FICCI-ANAROCK Report: Real Estate Dominates as Top Investment Choice in H1 2024
The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and ANAROCK Property Consultants have released the 'Homebuyer Sentiment Survey - H1 2024' highlighting significant shifts in homebuyer preferences and investment trends in India’s real est
NGT Orders BramhaCorp to Pay Rs 30.11 Mn for Breaching Pune Eco Norms
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Pune has ordered the local real estate firm BramhaCorp to pay Rs 30.11 million as compensation for violating environmental norms in the city.
Mumbai Man Falls Victim to Rs 10 Lakh Task Completion Scam: Here's How It Works
A Mumbai resident recently lost a staggering Rs 10 lakh to a task completion scam, highlighting the growing threat of such fraudulent activities in the digital age. Learn how these scams operate and how to protect yourself.
Magicbricks: New and Resale Property Listings on Par in Q4 2024
New Delhi, Jan 14 (PTI) The share of new and resale properties listed on the real estate platform Magicbricks was almost equal during the fourth quarter of 2024, reflecting a balanced market trend.