Bombay High Court Considers Businessman's "Luxury Lifestyle" Enhances Wife's Maintenance From ₹50K To ₹3.5 Lakh

The Bombay High Court recently enhanced a woman's monthly maintenance from Rs 50 thousand to Rs 3.50 lakhs after noting that her businessman husband from Pune along with his two sons, lived a lavished lifestyle while the divorced wife, who spent 16 years with him, now struggles to earn Rs 1 lakh a month and take care of herself and her daughter.

A division bench of Justices Burgess Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan noted that the husband Mukesh Gada, a real estate businessman misled the Family Court in Pune that he earned only Rs 50 thousand per month and heavily relief on his Income Tax Returns (ITR) which the judges said did not reflect the true 'standard of living' and 'assets' of the husband. 

"Mukesh's approach to Court with unclean hands; the scale of expenses he indicates were incurred on the family during the 16-year married life; the expenses projected by Purvi (wife); also factoring in that Purvi has been working hard as a private tutor to make ends meet; factoring in inflation; and also discounting the fact that the daughter is of the age of majority and yet would need significant resources to get a good professional education which could soon make her independent financially too, in our opinion, it would be appropriate that Purvi is given further maintenance in a further sum of Rs.3 lakhs per month, over and above the maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month granted in the Impugned Judgement. In other words, Purvi shall be entitled to an aggregate monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000 per month," the judges said in the order pronounced on November 10.

The bench took note of the fact that Mukesh was the 'torchbearer' of the huge 'Gaga Group' which ran several businesses along with his two brothers and father. The couple (Mukesh and Purvi) lived together for 16 years and had two sons and a daughter from their marriage. The judges noted from the record that Mukesh claimed that his annual salary is merely Rs 6 lakh while most part of the family's assets is owned by his father and brothers. They further took into account the contention that Mukesh took educational loan for his son's education and even his brothers funded for the same.

However, from the material brought on record by Purvi and also the information available on internet, Mukesh earned more than what he claimed on oath.

Indian Business Families And Its Members' Income

In their 41-page judgment, the judges emphasised that in family businesses, particularly in India, business operations are run by the male family members working as a collective unit to reap benefits from their professional activity.

"In this endeavour, their personal lives are supported and underwritten by their spouses, who may marginally get some role like a hobby rather than as a professional employment in these businesses. It is the benefits enjoyed in the course of running of such businesses by such male family members that fund their social and family lives and lifestyles. Therefore, when considering the financial capacity of such a male family member and indeed, the standard of living and personal dignity that such family member's spouse would get over a decade and a half of married life, it must be remembered that what makes it to the personal income-tax returns of the specific family member as 'taxable income' is not the sole determinant of what is earned and enjoyed by such family member," the judges observed. 

The allocation of income, profitability and net worth among the constituents of a family is a measure that families can entirely arrange, manage and contrive, the bench said, adding that when one examines cases where a party to a divorce litigation is a male member of a family running a composite family business, the approach has to also factor in the aforesaid facet, in sharp distinction to the approach in divorce cases involving, say, an employed professional whose day job would fund or part-fund the married couple's lifestyle, standard of living and social standing.

"Spouses, in particular housewives, who marry a constituent of a family, marry into the family. When that family runs a family business, the intricately and inextricably interwoven nature of the husband's financial interests with the wider interests of the family cannot be lost sight of. Courts would need to look at the de facto position as to how a husband was financing his lifestyle during marriage and juxtapose that with how he is financing his lifestyle after marriage, and then draw inferences. A blinkered focus on the seemingly de jure position by looking only at such assets as the family has chosen to officially leave in the hands of the husband's Income Tax balance sheet, or just the component of the family income that the family has chosen to attribute to such family member, would be quite inappropriate, misleading and unjust," the judges said. 

The judges therefore held that in such cases, the courts must not ignore other attendant circumstances that speak about such a man's social standing, standard of living, and ability to pay for his lifestyle.

Misleading Facts

The judges noted that Mukesh had transacted crores of money from his accounts to that of his brothers and had even granted a loan to one of Purvi's uncle. 

"Mukesh is a man of considerable means, and therefore his submissions on oath that he is leading a hand- to-mouth existence, not only erodes his credibility, but also underlines the fact that he has not come clean on important factual aspects of what needs consideration. If Mukesh's contentions were right, it would be a miracle that he has survived, quite apart from having financially supported his son and brought him up. It would be an even bigger miracle that he would have ever had the means to lend Purvi's uncle a loan of Rs. 50 lakhs," the judges said in the order. 

Partying In Macau, Wearing Luxury Brands

The judges noted from Purvi's submissions which demonstrated how Mukesh is a man of considerable means, given his lavish lifestyle, throwing mega parties, and his home even being featured in architectural magazines for its grandeur and luxury.

"A reasonable estimation of the standard of living and lifestyle of the couple during their 16-year long marriage would need to be informed by the lifestyle of a man of means in such scale. There is no reason to discount such a standard of living, with maintenance being fixed at a measly sum of Rs. 50,000 per month for a wife of 16 years, and even for that, having her struggle just to recover arrears. It is seen that the ITR indeed shows his ownership of properties, which was not disclosed during the proceedings in the trial court," the judges said. 

The bench said that Mukhesh's affidavit is resoundingly false in the sworn statements of having no means, and clearly demonstrates and underlines the dishonesty in the pleadings.

"It can be seen that Mukesh has been partying, trekking and holidaying during the period of litigation in a manner that would firmly undermine his claims of earning a mere Rs. 6 lakhs per annum. It is an admitted position that during the marriage, he was a globe-trotter travelling to various international locations including Macau, that is world-famous for its high-end casinos labelled as the 'Las Vegas of China'. It is well known that a businessman's family expenses and lifestyle need not be funded by his 'income' – it may in fact, constitute the expenditure of the businesses," the judgment records. 

The money the husband spends need not have to come into his hands as “income” in order to flow out towards an “expense”. This financial power that pays for a married couple's standard of living would get totally ignored if one looked merely at tax returns that are structured to depict the minimal possible income being offered to tax, the bench said. 

The judges further noted that Mukesh celebrated his 51st birthday along with his son's 24th birthday wearing luxury brand t-shirts (Kenzo) which charges at least Rs 15 thousand for one piece. They noted that the party included alcohol etc.

"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 (about Rs. 50,000 per month) and asking for a low-end maintenance awarded by the Family Court of a mere Rs. 50,000 per month for a wife divorced after 16 years of cohabitation, to be stayed pending hearing of the appeals," the judgment authored by Justice Sundaresan reads. 

Wife's Struggle

The judges noted that Purvi single-handedly raised her daughter from the time when she was 9 years old, with no support from Mukesh, who even defaulted in paying the interim maintenance amount.

"What is prima facie very clear is that she has had to compromise on her right to lead the same quality of life and standard of living commensurate with the matrimonial standard of 16 years of marriage. The standard of living and expenses of the male members and their respective spouses in the Gada Family are funded by such closely knit and powerfully inter-connected finances. The standard of living of any spouse such as Purvi, of a male member of such family, as the one Mukesh is a torchbearer of, cannot ignore the wider network power of the inter-connected finances. The Court ought not to focus solely on a contrived or devised under-reported financial position that the male members choose to present in his Income Tax Returns and in divorce proceedings," the judges said. 

The bench turned down the argument that Purvi earned Rs 1 lakh per month from two business and her work as a private tutor.

"If a divorced wife needs three jobs to end up making her income add up to Rs 1 lakh per month, after 16 years of a high standard of living as Mukesh's wife and a member of the Gada household, Mukesh's own submissions would necessitate holding that Purvi is struggling hard to maintain a decent life for her daughter, which ought to be a shared responsibility of a father," the judges said. 

Patriarchal Argument Rejected

The bench criticised Mukesh for arguing that a woman separated from her husband claiming to have no source of income would not even think of incurring expenses of a yoga trainer, fitness trainer, baking classes, violin classes etc. for her daughter.

"We are afraid we are unable to appreciate this line of argument not just for its patriarchal tenor. 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," the judges emphasised, further adding, "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."

The judges junked Mukesh's offer that he would set-off the Rs 50 lakh loan given to Purvi's uncle and the interest due to him can be counted against the amount to be paid as maintenance to Purvi. 

"We are equally taken aback," the judges said while explaining, "A marriage and the payment of maintenance at divorce is not a lending and borrowing transaction for such an approach to be adopted. To claim a set-off on amounts purportedly owed to Mukesh by an uncle of Purvi also does not make sense in view of the families of Purvi and Mukesh being distantly related. If a loan taken by Purvi's uncle can inform the maintenance payable to Purvi, the shared resources of Mukesh and his brothers and father would be even more relevant."

Therefore, the judges held that Purvi is entitled to lead a life of dignity and provide her daughter a life of dignity, and is entitled to a maintenance amount that is commensurate with such entitlement and opined that a sum of Rs. 50,000 per month is hardly a reasonable and logical quantum of maintenance.

With these observations, the judges ordered Mukesh to pay Rs 3.5 lakhs monthly maintenance. 

Appearance:

Advocates Dushyant Purekar and Rajat Dedhia appeared for the Husband. 

Purvi Gada appeared as party-in-person.

Case Title: Purvi Mukesh Gada vs Mukesh Popatlal Gada (Interim Application 16733 of 2023)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment