- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18607 OF 2023 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 21376 OF 2022 (GM-FC) IN WP No. 18607/2023 BETWEEN: SHRI. SANJAY GUPTA SON OF SHRI GOPI CHAND, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1417 10TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560040 PRESENTLY AT NO. 2133, HILLSTONE DRIVE, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA-95138 UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SEEMA GUPTA WIFE OF SHRI SANJAY GUPTA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. F-302 WILSON MANOR APARTMENTS, 13TH CROSS, HOSUR ROAD, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY MS.DEEPA J., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN M.C.1107/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE. IN WP NO. 21376/2022 BETWEEN: SMT SEEMA GUPTA WIFE OF SANJAY GUPTA D/O LT.SURESH GUPTA AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. F-302 “WILSON MANOR” APARTMENTS 13TH CROSS, HOSUR ROAD, WILSON GARDEN BENGALUR -560 027 ...PETITIONER (BY MS.DEEPA J., ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. SANJAY GUPTA SONOF GOPI CHAND AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 1427, 10TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 040 AND PRESENTLY AT NO. 2133, HILLSTONE DRIVE, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 94138 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 4TH AUGUST 2022 PASSED BY THE LD.II ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU ON IA NO.9 IN M.C.NO.1107/2018 AS AT ANNEXURE-A. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.IX in M.C.No.1107/2018 dated 04.08.2022 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, both the husband and wife are before this Court. The husband had filed WP.No.18607/2023 and the wife had filed WP.No.21376/2022 before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The wife had filed I.A.No.IX under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking direction to the husband to pay interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Family Court by way of order impugned had granted interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.80,000/- per month to the wife from the date of order till disposal of the petition and the Family Court had also directed the petitioner to pay/reimburse the travelling expenses of the wife twice in a year whenever she visits her daughter on production of bills. Further, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the wife towards one time litigation expenses. 4. Both the husband and wife had filed two matrimonial cases seeking divorce. The husband had filed M.C.No.1107/2018 against the wife seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife had filed M.C.No.4583/2019 seeking divorce on the ground of adultery. In M.C.No.1107/2018 filed by the husband, the wife had filed I.A.No.IX under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards litigation expenses. It is the case of the wife that the marriage was solemnized on 10.07.1992 at New Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs and in the wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters who are born on 16.10.1993 and 05.09.1998. It is the allegation of the wife that the husband is living with his paramour in his house at San Jose, California, USA. The family was staying in Bangalore and the husband shifted to USA permanently and started residing with his paramour. When the husband returned to India in between July - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 and August 2015 at that point of time, the wife was in matrimonial home and she came to know about all this. 5. It is the case of the wife that since November 2015 the husband was sending her an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per month for maintenance of the family i.e., herself and her two daughters, who were then living with her in Bengaluru. To support the family, he was also paying some of the bills for the matrimonial home and the wife also had access to an add-on credit card from the husband's credit card and in the month of July 2016, he abruptly stopped both these means of financial assistance for the family. Again from July 2017, the husband unilaterally reduced the maintenance and he was paying only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and began pressurising her to give him divorce. It is the case that in March 2018, the elder daughter was residing with the wife at Bengaluru and working for a company here. Younger daughter wanted to study in USA and had gone to live with the husband and his paramour. Thereafter, his conduct became more brazen. The wife has also stated what has transpired in the USA when the younger daughter was staying with the husband. According to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 the wife, the husband started with a salary and benefits of about Rs.1.55 crores per year in 2015 and by the time the application is filed, it must have been increased. The wife had given the details of the seven immovable properties which is acquired by the husband in various placed in India. Apart from the immovable properties in India, the husband also owns a 5- bed, 3-bath house of 3,000 Square feet at 2133 Hillstone Dr San Jose, California, USA, which he bought in 2016 and is worth about Rs.12 crores. It is the case that since marriage, she is a homemaker and she is not in a position to maintain herself. She has given the details of her expenditure which reads as follows: • "Apartment Maintenance/Expenses = Rs.5,000/- • Household Help = Rs.8,000/- • Phone & Internet Bill = Rs.3,000/- • Electricity & Water = Rs.3,500/- • Food incl. Eating Out = Rs.25,000/- • Transport incl. Driver's salary and Petrol = Rs.30,000/- • Annual Car Insurance & Maintenance = Rs.30,000/- • Travel incl. Vacation Travel = Rs.60,000/- • Misc. & other expenses = Rs.15,000/- • Emergency savings = Rs.15,000/- • Provident Fund & Insurance • Contributions = Rs.36,000/-" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 6. The husband had filed his objections stating that the maintenance and litigation expenses claimed in the application are exorbitant. It is stated that his younger daughter is residing with him and pursuing her studies in Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles in America. The elder daughter is an engineering graduate in Computer Science and she was working in a private company at Bengaluru since 2016. Now she is joining University of Washington at Seattle to do her post graduation in Computer Science. All expenses for studies and also hostel for both the daughters are being provided by him. It is also admitted that on 05.01.2018, the wife had filed a divorce petition before the Superior Court of California, Country of Santa Clara at San Jose, he entered appearance and had contested the matter by raising objection on maintainability of the said petition. 7. According to the husband, the wife has never stayed in matrimonial home and she had never taken care of him while he underwent surgery in the month of September 2015. He also admitted that since November 2015, he was sending a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month for the maintenance of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 wife and the wife had access to an add-on credit card of the husband's main credit card. He admitted that from the month of July 2016, he stopped the credit card and paying additional bills as he realized that the wife was extorting money from him and he has reduced the maintenance as per the needs of the family and not for the reasons alleged by the wife. He denied that he is drawing salary and benefits of Rs.1.55 crores per year in 2015. He is earning in dollars and his expenses are also in dollars and the cost of living is high in USA. Further, the properties mentioned in the applications are his self acquired properties and the wife has no right or share in these properties. The wife is residing in one of the apartments and two other are leased and there are loans outstanding on these two properties. He denied that the wife needs a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month for her maintenance, as per their life style. He is ready to pay the maintenance to the wife, but her claim of Rs.2,00,000/- per month is highly exaggerated and baseless. 8. The Family Court by order impugned had directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- per month to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 wife towards her interim maintenance, to pay/reimburse the travelling expenses of the wife twice in a year whenever she visits her daughter on production of bills and an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards one time litigation expenses. While granting the maintenance, the Family Court had observed that at the time of filing of this petition, the wife was aged about 51 years and at the time of passing the order, she is aged around 54 years. She was not working earlier and now at this age, it is quite difficult for her to get any job without work experience. Her both daughters are studying in USA. The wife being the mother needs to visit them and stay there to spend quality time with them. It is the duty of the husband to pay maintenance to the wife to lead dignified life like him. Looking at the social and economical status of the parties, the Court had passed the impugned order. 9. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court, initially the wife had come before this Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount by filing WP.No.21376/2022 which was filed on 20.10.2022. In the grounds, it is stated that the Court had failed to consider the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 annual income of the husband and failed to grant the maintenance as claimed and also the standard of living and the income of the husband ought to have been appreciated by the Court. It is the case of the wife that the husband who has deserted the wife and living with the paramour and living a comfortable life, is bound to pay the maintenance to the wife. As mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha1, all the documents that are required to be filed and the facts to be stated were not stated, in spite of sufficient opportunity given before the Family Court. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the husband had filed WP.No.18607/2023 questioning the impugned order nearly after one year the petition was filed by the wife, whereby the maintenance is granted to her. It is the contention of the learned counsel that before this Court, the husband has filed his statement of assets and liabilities and several facts were suppressed by the husband. It is submitted that before this Court, it is his case that he lost his job in the year 2022 and he is eking out his livelihood basing on the income he is deriving from letting out a room in his house and 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 also by giving his cars on rent. It is submitted that initially there are certain properties which are in the joint name and from the year 2015, he is living with the paramour and with an intention to leave the wife, he started selling the properties which are in the joint name of both the parties and from that sale proceedings he has purchased the properties. From the year 2019 to 2023, he started selling those properties and those details were not furnished by the husband. When the wife had brought to the notice of the Court that as stated by him, he is not paying the college fees to the daughters and in fact by taking the loan they are only taking care of themselves. Further, in US, there is a house which is in the joint name of his partner, according to the husband and his paramour, according to the wife and another house is in the name of the trust and the husband is a trustee. It is submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case referred supra, even that details needs to be stated which the husband had conveniently not brought to the notice of the Court. It is submitted that he is having accounts in City Bank and also HSBC Bank and those bank statements are not placed before the Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 11. It is submitted that when the husband says that he lost his job on 02.11.2022, he pays an amount Rs.75,000/- to a NGO. Learned counsel has also placed some bank transactions to show that he is buying the clothes and other expensive things to his paramour. It is submitted that when this Court had directed the husband to file an affidavit, this Court has given him three opportunities and in spite of giving a reasonable opportunity, he has not come before the Court with true facts. Learned counsel submits that according to the husband, he sold a flat in Bengaluru for an amount Rs.4,20,00,000/-. In that he has paid 2% towards the brokerage. Learned counsel relying on the bank statements submits that the property is sold to the tenant which clearly shows that even on that aspect also, there is suppression of fact. Further, learned counsel has drawn the attention to the documents and the affidavit that is filed by the husband pertaining to a sale transaction of an agricultural property in Tamil Nadu. It is submitted that the property i.e., an extent of 9 acres and odd is sold for an amount Rs.35 lakhs but after 15 days from the date of that transaction for the standing crops in a dry land that was sold for an amount Rs.1,65,00,000/-. It is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 submitted that the transactions that are stated by the husband are created and on the face of it, it appears that only for the purpose of evading the maintenance to the wife. It is also submitted that when this Court has sought for information with regard to the businesses, he has disclosed the business pertaining to postal franchise. In the earlier objections, when she has specifically brought to the notice of the Court that apart from this, he is doing some other business known as SNDK LLC and SND Consulting Inc. When these companies find a place in the order passed by this Court, the husband ought to have responded to that, but he has not responded to the same. It is submitted that when the wife had filed a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery and made the paramour as a party/respondent no. 2, till now they could not serve the notices on the paramour and in the affidavit he says that he is a trustee for a particular house in California, which ultimately has to go to the paramour's children and when they have jointly purchased the property and residing together, till now, the notice is not served on the person, which clearly shows the conduct of the parties. At one stretch, the husband is seeking divorce and living with the paramour and the notices that are - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 sent are not served on her till now. The M.C. is filed in the year 2018. Even after 7 years, the notices are not served on her. 12. In the affidavit, it is submitted that he is holding only 25% share in the postal annex and the paramour is having 75% share holding and counsel submits that, based on the documents, how much money it requires to establish a postal annex, it would require maximum of $3,49,830/- dollars and minimum of $2,49,130 dollars. It is submitted that according to him, he has invested $3,00,000/- dollars and how he has become a partner of 25% share is also not known. The husband has submitted the statements that are filed before the concerned departments of the years before this Court. Only one document is placed before the Court. In fact, there are other forms and the same were not filed. Learned counsel submits that if the husband is running into losses by establishing one franchise why they have established another two franchises within a short time is also not known. Learned counsel submits that all the documents that are placed before the Court and the affidavit that is filed is nothing but suppression and misrepresentation of material facts. It is also submitted that in - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this is a fit case where perjury proceedings have to be initiated against the husband. It is further submitted that the wife is entitled for the maintenance of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per month and WP.No.21376/2022 filed by the wife needs to be allowed. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that there is no suppression or misrepresentation of facts by the husband at any point of time. In the earlier statement of assets and liabilities, he has stated about the transactions, as those particular documents were not with him, the same were not filed before the Court. It is submitted that from the month of November 2022, the husband is out of job and he is not in a position to take care of himself. In spite of that he is making all his efforts to earn some money and in that process he has rented out one room in his house and also the car. Now even the car is not in a running condition and from that he is not getting any income. As both the daughters were with him, though they have taken loan, he facilitated the daughters to get the loan and he has been continuously attending the other requirements of the daughters. It is submitted that when the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 children are with the mother, what are the requirements when both of them are not with her and both are in US, wife cannot have the same expenditure. That is why before the Court he has clearly stated that those expenditures are exaggerated and exorbitant figures. In the month of November 2022, he has lost his job and in the present circumstances, he is not in a position to pay the amounts. All the properties that are sold are his own properties and the wife cannot find fault with any of the sale transactions that are made by the husband. It is submitted that the husband has his own reasons to stay away from the wife. 14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the husband that at any point of time, there are no suppression and misrepresentation of facts and there is no reason for the husband to suppress the facts. While granting the maintenance, the Court has to look at the reasonable requirements of the wife, the income of the husband. On the first count, the expenses that are stated are not reasonable expenses and on the other end, the financial capacity of the husband is not such that he will be able to take care of the needs of the wife. It is submitted that as he was not in a position to pay even an - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 amount of Rs.80,000/- which is granted by the Family Court, the wife has come before this Court questioning the order. The wife is staying in one apartment and if that apartment is leased out, it fetches the rent of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and another apartment where he is getting an amount of Rs.40,000/- rent, he was paying to her. Now, the agent who was earlier taking care was not answering the call and as per the instructions, the keys are with the wife. It is submitted that he is not keeping well, because he lost the job and all these responsibilities and the disputes in the matrimonial life, he is suffering with different ailments and it also led to depression. In support of the case, learned counsel has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case in paragraph Nos.78, 80, 81, 82 and 84 which reads as follows: "78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. 82. Section 23 of HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant’s own earning or from any other source. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hedge v Smt. Saroj Hegde laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : 1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3.The independent income and property of the claimant. 4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guess work is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded u/s 125 Cr.PC is adjustable against the amount awarded u/ 24 of the Act." 15. Learned counsel has also relied on another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and Others2 in paragraph No.8 which reads as follows: "8. The Wife has no fixed abode of residence. She say she is living in Gurudwara with her eldest daughter for safety. On the other hand husband has sufficient income and a house to him. Wife has not claimed and litigation expenses in this appeal. She is aggrieved only because of the paltry amount of maintenance fixed by 2 (1997) 7 SCC 7 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 the court. No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstance of each case. Some scope for liverage can, however, be always there. Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those; he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month payable by respondent-husband to the appellant-wife." 16. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in case of Ms. Bindu Chaudhary Vs. Shri. Deepak Suga3 in paragraph No.9 which reads as follows: "9. If a person is working in Dubai, he earns in the currency of that country and spends also in that currency. So it is not open to the wife to just convert his income in Indian currency and then seek enhancement. The Court has to consider the cost of living as per the living standards in country where he is employed." 3 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5423 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 17. Learned counsel had also relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in case of K.N. Vs. R.G.4 in paragraph No.10 which reads as follows: "10. In the light of the judicial pronouncements on the issue of the interim maintenance, we would now examine the facts of the present case. The undisputed fact is that the husband is well educated and employed at a senior position in a reputed company in Singapore and has been earning about Rs.13 lakhs INR per month. That he lives in a rented accommodation is also not disputed between the parties. On the other hand, the appellant is also well educated and has been working with reputed companies from the days prior to her marriage and has been employed throughout the period post marriage and as her own income affidavit reveals, is presently also employed and has a net salary of about Rs.1 Lac per month. The contention of the appellant is that she is entitled to maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.2.50 lakhs per month, is primarily based on the fact that the respondent is earning in 'dollars' in Singapore. The contention of the respondent, however, is that while the respondent may be earning in 'dollars' but even his expenditures are in 'dollars'. We cannot agree with the contention of the appellant that merely because the respondent is earning in 'dollars' she is entitled to the maintenance claimed by converting his salary in dollars into Indian rupees. We agree with the respondent that his expenditure being in dollars, the salary being in dollars is a fact which cannot be overemphasized. We are supported in our view by a judgment of this court in Bindu Chaudhary vs. Deepak Suga reported at (2016) 234 DLT 108 (DB), where this court has held that if a person is employed in Dubai and earns in currency of that country, then he also spends in that currency. So, it is not open to the wife to convert his income in Indian currency and seek enhancement. The relevant para of the said judgment is extracted herein: "9. If a person is working in Dubai, he earns in the currency of that country and spends also in that currency. So it is not open to the wife to just convert his 4 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7704 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 income in Indian currency and then seek enhancement. The Court has to consider the cost of living as per the living standards in country where he is employed." 18. Relying on these judgments, it is submitted that the payment of maintenance cannot be a punishment to the husband and it should be based on the reasonable requirement and expenses of the wife. It is submitted that husband is paying an amount of Rs.40,000/- now and at best he can pay another amount of Rs.10,000/-. Altogether, he is ready to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance. If the wife lets the husband to lease the property, he will be able to lease it and pay the rent to the wife. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Family Court needs to be modified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that before he lost his job, he was earning $300,000 dollars per annum. In that he had to pay the taxes and after the tax, he may be getting less than $20,000 dollars per month i.e., an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- per month, if the purchase power parity is looked at. 19. With regard to the other businesses, though in the present affidavit it is not stated, in the earlier affidavit it is - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 categorically denied by the husband that he is not doing any other businesses. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the wife stating that in the earlier affidavit, when a statement was given by the husband, the wife had pointed out and that is why the Court in the next order had directed the husband to specifically advert to the same but in spite of the same, there is no response. 20. Learned counsel for the wife submits that according to the wife, the husband is earning $42,900 US Dollars. As per the purchase power parity, as fixed by the World Bank, the one dollar is equal to Rs.24/-. Even that way if it is calculated, the monthly salary of the husband will come to an amount of Rs.10,29,600/- and he cannot have any difficulty to pay the maintenance to the wife. 21. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The wife had filed the application seeking maintenance of an amount Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The undisputed facts are that the husband is staying in the US, the wife and the children were staying in India initially. The wife for sometime was staying in US and - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 then she came back to India and she is staying with the family. It is the case of the wife that in the year 2015, looking at the passport and what the children have observed, she came to know that the husband is living with somebody else and the disputes have started. The manner in which the properties are sold, it shows that after 2015 till 2022, several properties were sold. According to the husband, those properties belong to him. According to the wife, joint properties which are owned by both of them were sold and he purchased it on his independent capacity and he started selling the same. When the wife filed petition seeking divorce before the Court at US, the husband had filed objections stating that the same is not maintainable in the US. Then the wife had filed the petition in India and according to the wife, the husband is living with a lady. In all the documents, she is shown as a partner and according to the wife, she is his paramour. The M.C. was filed on the ground of adultery making her as respondent No.2. The husband also filed an M.C. seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Very interesting thing in this case is that according to the husband, she is a partner, according to the wife, she is a paramour, they own a house, living jointly and he becomes a trustee of the - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 property which the lady owns and she is not served with a notice right from the year 2018. This particular fact strengthens the case of the wife about the evasive nature of the husband. 22. This Court on 18.06.2025 had passed the following order: "Aggrieved by the order passed in M.C No.1107/2018 dated 04.08.2022 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had granted interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the wife against the claimed amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Both the husband and wife are before this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that husband is not in a position to maintain himself, he is out of job from November 2022 and he has to support his two daughters and has to take care of himself. The amount that is claimed by his wife is exorbitant and wife is not in need of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by her. It is submitted that by renting the other rooms in the house and car, he is deriving some amount from that and he is also taking care of himself and also the daughters. As such it is his submission that the husband is not in a position to pay the amount. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that statement of assets and liabilities, rejoinder filed by the husband before this Court is with all suppression and misrepresentation of facts. 4. It is the case of the husband that he is taking care of the daughter’s expenditure. When the daughter’s themselves are paying and in that regard she had filed a document to show that she is paying money. It is submitted that the husband is living in his parent’s house which is jointly owned by him. It is submitted that he is doing some other business as of now and in that regard wife has placed the documents before this Court to show that he is doing business and sufficiently earning. For that reply is filed without giving a clear - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 explanation to the same. It is submitted that the property which is jointly owned by him is sold on 15.12.2022 for an amount of Rs.4,20,00,000/- and on August, 2023 the statement of assets and liabilities are filed. In the said statement of assets and liabilities, there is no mention about this particular sale transaction which is a relevant aspect. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that all these aspects clearly discloses that there is suppression and misrepresentation of facts. Further it is submitted that as per the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha5, if such statements are made before the court, necessary proceedings has to be initiated against the party who has misrepresented the facts before the Court. It also submitted that this Court had directed the husband had to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the writ petition filed by the husband and it is difficult for her to lead her life with that amount. 5. This court has heard the learned counsels on either side and also perused the entire material placed before the Court. A bare perusal of the documents that are filed by the husband and wife shows that there is some suppression on the part of the husband in bringing all the facts to the notice of the Court and it is an admitted fact that the sale transaction for an amount of Rs.4,20,00,000/- is not reflected in the statement of assets and liabilities filed by the petitioner/husband before this Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER 1. The husband shall file an affidavit before this court with the fresh statement of asset and liabilities mentioning categorically about the sale transactions and about the companies the respondent/wife is referring to as the business owned by husband. A clear statement whether it belongs to him or not. 2. Basing on the affidavit, further orders will be passed. List these matters on 03.07.2025." 5 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 23. As per the order dated 18.06.2025, an affidavit is filed before this Court. Then on 10.07.2025, this Court had passed an order which reads as follows: "This court on 18.06.2025 had passed an orders directing the husband to file an affidavit before this court, containing the fresh statement of assets and liabilities, clearly mentioning about the sale transactions, about the companies referred to by the respondent/wife that the business are owned by the husband, a clear statement whether it belongs to him or not and basing on the affidavit, further orders will be passed. Learned counsel appearing for the husband has filed affidavit on behalf of the husband. Wherein, the husband states that after he lost his job in November 2022, he could not get any other job and at his seniority it is very difficult to get a job in a formal organization. He went into depression and he is struggling with health and career issues. He has the responsibility of two daughters and he started looking for different ventures to generate income. He started leasing out his car and room in the house to generate income and he is getting a sum of $1,660 towards rental of one room and he was getting $1,700 for renting out the cars. As the car met with an accident, now he is not getting that income and he enrolled for a course in real estate and also opened a company in the name of ‘Armonia Estates LLC’ to do real estate business. The husband had no experience in real estate business and as the real estate market was bad, he dropped the idea of real estate business and he has no income from the business Armonia Estates LLC. The company named SNDK LLC is not run or managed by him. The company was renamed as SJ Luxury Travel, he was leasing the cars and used it temporarily for couple of years and this has also stopped. He is not managing the business-SND Consulting Inc and has no income from that business. It is stated that he is not in good health and suffering from hypertension and diabetes and he is under depression and taking regular medication to address these ailments. He do not have any job and he has to pay the home loan, insurance and meet other expenses and also support the dependants - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 and maintain himself. He has also given details about the loan that was obtained for the elder daughter's education in the year 2019 and he had paid the interest component for about 2 years, until she started earning in the year 2021. When the daughter was studying in the US, he was paying expenses that were not covered with her loan until she started working. Now it is stated that he has also facilitated his younger daughter to get the loan and also helping her on the contingency expenses. It is stated that after selling the land in Tamil Nadu and also an apartment in Bangalore, out of the said sale proceeds, he has invested about $3,00,000 in business i.e. franchise agreement “POSTALANNEX”-courier company in January 2024. He has taken a commercial space for rental and set up the establishment as required by the company. It takes 3 to 4 years to make a break even from this business and he is under loss from the business. The job keeps him engaged and he has no income from this business as on the date. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife has placed before this court certain documents to show that the husband has come before this court with suppression and misrepresentation of facts. She has placed before this court the documents dated 03.10.2013, 25.01.2010 where certain properties are sold. The petitioner has placed before the court material to show that he has started a business- “POSTALANNEX” courier company which the petitioner/husband was referring with $3,000 which for break through it takes some more time and as of now he is not getting any income. The wife has filed certain documents to show that he is having three franchises. Earlier he started two franchises and the third one is started by the date this affidavit is filed for this court. It is submitted that in fact he is sponsoring the Diwali fest which shows that the husband is earning sufficient and further if he is not getting any amount from the business, he wouldn't have opened another franchise. Initially he started with one franchise, now he has extended to three franchises which shows that the husband is having enough income. In the bank statement submitted by the husband it is shown that on 09.09.2024 and on 26.01.2024, an amount of Rs.1,08,730/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.4.00 lakh was kept in fixed deposit. It is submitted that on 06.01.2025 and on 08.01.2025 on different dates it shows that the husband has spent the amount for his girlfriend, he has the money to spend - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 for his girlfriend, but he has no intent to support his wife. It is also stated that there is a house in US which stands in the name of husband, that aspect is also not brought to notice of the court i.e.,No. 11151 Yellow Leaf Way, Germantown, MD-20876. It is submitted that at every step there are suppression and misrepresentation of facts. In spite of an opportunity that is given by the court, still the husband has not come up before this court with clean hands and with true facts. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the documents that are placed before this court. The documents are filed by the wife with regard to the transactions which are much prior to the transactions which are of 2010, 2012 and 2013. At this point of time, this Court need not look into those documents. As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha6, the statement of Assets and Liabilities need not contain about all these details. The crucial aspect in this case is, the husband submits that he is having one franchise, by spending an amount of $ 3,00,000 he has started that franchise. The material that is placed by the wife before the Court shows that he is having three franchises. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as those documents are served at the time of arguments, she needs to get instructions, with regard to the amount that is received, when a particular facts are stated in the affidavit, the husband as well should have filed the supporting documents. The video shows that husband is sponsoring a Diwali event. All these facts are placed by the wife before this court in the form of an affidavit. In these circumstances a response needs to be filed by the husband. Even with regard to the house in US in the name of husband, there is no whisper in the statement of assets and liabilities or in the affidavit that is filed before the court by the husband. The petitioner/husband shall file an affidavit responding to all the documents that are placed before the court by the wife and in support of his contentions whatever the documents he is referring to or the transactions that are referred to, he should file an 6 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 affidavit before this court. If there is any suppression or misrepresentation of facts before the court, this court will initiate the perjury proceedings against the husband and will also dismiss the petition with the exemplary costs. List this matter on 04.08.2025." 24. In the affidavit filed by the husband, at paragraph No.3, it is stated that he has not suppressed any of the facts. Then in paragraph No.4, it is stated that he had sold the apartment in Bangalore for sale consideration of an amount of Rs.4,20,00,000/- by Sale Deed dated 15.12.2022 and he had to pay 2% brokerage and other incidental expenses for the sale of this property. It is stated that he could not trace these documents and had stated the amount which he could recollect and the error in the previous affidavit is regretted and he has apologized for the mistake. At paragraph No.5, it is stated that he do not own any property bearing No.11151 Yellow Leaf Way and the counsel for the respondent had submitted that Ms.Deepika Chopra got this property as alimony from her ex- husband and that he had purchased this property. Those allegations are false and he has not purchased the property. It is stated that Ms. Deepika Chopra has created an Assignment of Beneficial Interest in Trust and has made husband a Trustee - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 with an understanding that this should be handed over to her two children. It is stated that since this document does not pertain to his asset, he is not producing this document, but if this Court insists, he is ready to produce it before this Court. 25. Then with regard to the Postal Annex franchise, it is stated that the investment is made jointly by the husband and Ms. Deepika Chopra with Ms. Deepika Chopra having 75% share and his share is only 25%. It is stated that he has invested in one franchise and paid money for this new franchise. Ms. Deepika Chopra has purchased one franchise in August 2024 and another one recently on 30.06.2025. For these two units, Ms. Deepika Chopra she has made the payments and but not the husband and all locations are under the same company. According to him, the wife is in possession of the two properties in Bengaluru. The wife resides in one apartment and she can lease the other and this would meet her maintenance. It is stated that the husband is not spending on Ms. Deepika Chopra as she is gainfully employed and in fact she is supporting him since he lost his job. Though he lost his job in November 2022, he continued to support the two - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 daughters' education and other needs as and when the need arises and as they requested him. He has some savings with him which he is using to support himself and two daughters and their educational needs and paying maintenance to the wife. It is stated that the franchise business will eventually make profits in the coming years and now he has no means or resources, perhaps the children have to start supporting the wife when they are gainfully employed. The elder daughter is gainfully employed and the younger daughter will be completing her education in another 3-4 years and will be gainfully employed thereafter. Again it is stated that he is not having any income from any source and he has not suppressed any information. The franchise business is at loss and it will take 4-5 years to generate profits and he is living in this hope. In any event, this franchise work keeps him engaged and helps him address the depression and regain his health. This is the affidavit that is filed before this Court. 26. It is interesting to note that the husband has stated the name of the lady and stated about their joint business, joint properties, the trust and learned counsel for the wife submits - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 that till now, she is not served with notice. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that something that is stated across the bar cannot be considered and if the notice is not served, there is a procedure for that and just like that submissions that are made cannot be taken into consideration and it is the duty of the wife to see that the notice is served and it is for the second respondent in the divorce proceedings either she wants to contest the proceedings or not. Basing on that, the Court cannot draw any inference and it has no bearing in the present case. This Court is not able to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel for the husband. The conduct of the husband from the year 2015 till now and the facts that are narrated and the facts which are according to the husband, he has not suppressed the facts, but from time to time, the affidavits are filed, vague statements are made and there are several variations in the statements that are placed before the Court. There is a purpose and purport for filing statement of assets and liabilities and the confusion or the clarity with regard to the income of the parties as it was going on for years, as per the judgment in Rajnesh's case referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court wanted to put an end to all this and wanted the - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 parties to place all the facts before the Court so that the facts would be clear and it would be in the interest of both the parties. The Courts would be able to pass a reasoned order and the time that consumes for the Courts and all the guess work that has to be done by the Court and the series of litigation that is emanating from these proceedings and to put an end to all this, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case has elaborately discussed and that is why an affidavit was directed to be filed containing the statement of assets and liabilities so that if any party that comes to the Court with unclean hands will be paying the price for the same. 27. When a party comes to the Court seeking particular relief, as in this case, the husband has come before the Court seeking divorce and the wife has also sought for divorce. It is an admitted fact that the notice is not served to the second respondent. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the husband has nothing to do with the service of notice on the second respondent. According to the learned counsel for the wife, the matter was listed last week and the same was adjourned as the service of notice on the second respondent is - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 incomplete. This Court cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the husband that it has no bearing in this case because it shows the conduct of the parties and the manner in which the wife has been made to suffer. The husband has admitted that he has lost his job in the year 2022, till such time, he was having sufficient means. When he filed his objections before the Court, he accepts what is the amount that is paid till 2016 and he voluntarily accepted that he stopped the payment. According to husband, the wife is asking exorbitant amount and according to the wife, the husband is pressurising her to give the divorce. In that process, he has stopped paying the expenses. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case and in other several judgments has observed about the parameters for granting maintenance, financial capacity of the parties and how the wife should be continued to maintain the same standard of living. This Court has perused judgments that are relied on by the learned counsel for the husband. In this particular case, the whole conduct of the husband right from the beginning till now and looking at his pleadings and the present pleadings before the Court, this Court is of the view that he has not come before the Court with - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 clean hands and all the statements that are placed before the Court do not inspire any confidence in the mind of the Court. In these circumstances, this Court do not find any reasons to consider the case of the husband and reduce the maintenance as he is not entitled for any relief from this Court. 28. Then coming to the case of the wife, this Court is inclined to allow the petition that is filed by the wife and maintenance of an amount of Rs.80,000/- is enhanced to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, with regard to the service of notice to the respondent No.2 in the M.C. that is filed by the wife, in the light of the submissions that are made and the documents that are placed before this Court with regard to the relationship, according to the husband, she is a partner and they are having the joint business and he is also a trustee in a trust created by her. The Family Court shall take appropriate steps and see that the notice is served in whatever means that can be done at the earliest. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is passing the following order: - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30236 WP No. 18607 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21376 of 2022 ORDER i. The order passed in I.A.No.IX in M.C.No.1107/2018 dated 04.08.2022 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is modified and the maintenance is enhanced from an amount of Rs.80,000/- per month to Rs.2,00,000/- per month. ii. Accordingly, WP.No.21376/2022 filed by the wife is allowed. iii. WP.No.18607/2023 filed by the husband is dismissed. iv. All I.As. in these petitions shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6