Now coming to the quantum of maintenance, though the
petitioner has produced her Income Tax returns, the respondent has not
reciprocated the gesture. It is to meet such situations that the Supreme Court
in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has also laid down several guidelines requiring
both the parties to make several disclosures in the form of affidavits inter alia
touching the income aspect as well. Conspicuously, in that matter, the
Supreme Court had directed the husband to produce Income Tax returns
before passing the order for granting interim maintenance. In my view,
instead of resorting to such a course now, which is likely to further delay the
proceeding, it would be appropriate to draw an adverse inference, which is
also held to be permissible in this order of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). Consequently, without indulging into further discussion,
failure of the respondent to come with a disclosure as to his own income and
taking into consideration all the aforementioned facts and circumstances and
bearing in mind the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh (supra) and resorting to an inevitable guesswork, it would be just
and proper to award interim maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of her application i.e. 03.10.2017.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4014 OF 2019
Arpana Vijay Manore Vs Dr. Vijay Tukaram Manore,
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 09.12.2020
Citation: 2020 SCC OnLineBom 3925,
Print Page