When wife can be denied maintenance
The Court pointed out that it had come in evidence that the appellant-wife had invested Rs 50 lakh in fixed deposits and also made investments in mutual funds. She has also invested another Rs 2 lakh that she got as interim maintenance in a fixed deposit. The Court noted that if she was in dire need of money she would used the funds of interim maintenance and not invested them in a fixed deposit. The Court further noted that she resided in a flat that she had bought with her husband, who said she had exclusive possession of the house which meant there was no rent to be paid. Relying on the judgment of Shehnaz Arvind Mudbhatkal Vs. Arvind Ramkrishna Mudbhatkal [2011 (6) Mah LJ 719] the Court ruled that since the wife is getting more than Rs 37,500 per month as interest and had more than Rs 50 lakh in the bank and in addition her son was providing money for her maintenance and other expenses hence no one was dependent in this case. [Madhu Gupta vs. Pravin Kumar Gupta, FCA No. 144 of 2013, decided on 11th February, 2014]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SHRI. P.N.DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2014
