The Bombay High Court recently quashed a Pune family court order granting ₹10 lakhs as permanent alimony to a woman, after finding the family court based its decision purely on "guesswork" of her estranged husband’s income. .In the absence of proper income details, he family court judge had assumed that the husband earned ₹1 lakh per month since he was a skilled and qualified person who had earlier worked in Germany. A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish S Chavan strongly disapproved of this approach, observing that the family court judge had carried out such guesswork without any evidence. "The learned Judge has merely carried out a guess work without any evidence produced on record as to what is the earning of the husband and what is the need of the wife," the High Court observed. .The High Court, therefore, remanded the matter back to the family court for fresh adjudication. It directed the family court judge to determine the amount of permanent alimony by drawing a statement of the earnings of the husband and the needs of the wife. “We deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Judge, Family Court, Pune, for determination of the amount of permanent alimony as well as the amount of maintenance to be paid to the daughter, which would necessarily have to be commensurate with the earnings of the appellant since the learned Judge has merely carried out a guess work without any evidence produced on record as to what is the earning of the husband and what is the need of the wife,” the Court ordered. .The husband had approached the family court with a plea for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The wife had not defended the case. The court had dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay ₹10 lakh as permanent alimony. It also ordered ₹10,000 per month for child maintenance.The husband filed a plea before the High Court challenging the financial directions. He objected to the manner in which the family court had speculated on how much he was earning as income. “In absence of details, it can be assumed that the petitioner's net income must be ₹1 lakh a month," the family court had ruled. The High Court bench found this approach unacceptable. It stated that permanent alimony and maintenance would have to be commensurate with the actual earnings of the husband.Consequently, the High Court sent the matter back to the Pune family court. The High Court ordered the family court to decide the matter afresh within six months. Until then, the husband must continue paying ₹10,000 per month as child maintenance..Advocate Ashwin Pimpale appeared for the husband.Advocate Amtuzehra Chimthanawala appeared for the wife..[Read order]
