SC disbelieves husband's meagre salary claim, orders re-look
Disbelieving the highly qualified husband's claim that he was drawing Rs 30,000 salary per month, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Bombay High Court to consider afresh the plea of his estranged wife for an interim maitenance of Rs 50,000 per month.delhi Updated: Jul 21, 2010 20:53 IST
Disbelieving the highly qualified husband's claim that he was drawing Rs 30,000 salary per month, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Bombay High Court to consider afresh the plea of his estranged wife for an interim maitenance of Rs 50,000 per month.
A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha was of the view that it was highly improbable that the Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, a Chartered Accountant who owns a company, was drawing just Rs 30,000 as his salary.
Neeta, the wife submitted she did not have any independent source of income and was pursuing her Ph D relying on her elder sister who has been supporting her since 2001.
"In a case such as the present one, the stand of the husband that he is drawing salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the company since August 2005 is inherently improbable. The husband is highly qualified. He is CA, ICWA, CIMA and has also completed a course in Computer Information Technology.
"He has worked with renowned and big companies like M/sm Kimberly Clark and M/s Tata Technology as Finance Manager and Senior SAP Consultant respectively before he started on his own in January, 2000. He did not leave the job due to any compulsion but because he wanted to grow big," the apex court said.
"The High Court has not taken into consideration these vital aspects and accepted the statement of the husband that he was drawing salary of Rs 30,000 per month as a gospel truth.
"In so far as wife is concerned, it appears that she does not have any settled job. She has worked at a few places for a few months. We think this is eminently a case in which the High Court must reconsider the wife's application for interim maintenance," the apex court said while reverting the issue to the High Court for a fresh consideration.