Purvi Mukesh Gada v. Mukesh Popatlal Gada

15. Each party presented a compilation of documents and relied on them for their respective contentions – the need to enhance the maintenance as an interim measure, canvassed by Purvi; and the need to do away with any payment whatsoever as an interim measure canvassed by Mukesh. These compilations were taken on record and were examined with their assistance. Assessment of Marital Standard of Living:

16. The Gada Family of which Mukesh is an integral member, is indeed extremely well endowed. They have business interests ranging from real estate development to financial services. The Gada Family (they are also Shahs – in fact, one of their firms, G&S Associates, is a short form for Gada and Shah) is a business family that owns and runs composite family businesses presided over by Mukesh’s father Popatlal Gada (“Popatlal”). Mukesh and his siblings, Kishore Gada (“Kishore”) and Nilesh Gada (“Nilesh”), along with Popatlal, run the family business as one unit, through a web of partnership firms, and bodies corporate including limited liability partnerships and companies, with Mukesh holding himself out as the “torchbearer” of these businesses.

17. What is writ large from the material on record is that like with any Indian marriage, while Purvi married Mukesh, she married into Mukesh’s family. For purposes of appreciating the standard of living during the matrimonial life, the lifestyle and basic comforts to which she was entitled for the 16 years of matrimony, were of the standards available to her as Mukesh’s wife, as indeed Popatlal's daughter-in-law, and sister-in-law of Kishore and Nilesh.

18. 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.

19. 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. Therefore, 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.

20. 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. Unclean Hands and Lack of Credibility:

21. Bearing that perspective in mind, we are unable to find much credibility in Mukesh’s attempt to bring the focus of this Court solely to his Income Tax Returns and the assets claimed to be under his direct ownership. The contention that material assets are co-owned with other members of the family pales in relevance when it comes to such assets being indicative of his wealth and the enjoyment of wealth that his spouse would have had over 16 years of marriage. When looking at the social and family life of a litigating party who is seeking to be relieved of his obligation to pay any maintenance whatsoever pending hearing and final disposal of appeal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to ignore other attendant circumstances that speak to his social standing, standard of living, and ability to pay for his lifestyle.

22. A bare reading of Mukesh’s pleadings would suggest that he lives a life of penury and a hand-to-mouth existence, being unable to afford paying even a bare sum of Rs. 50,000 per month. Such pleadings on oath, erode the credibility of his contentions. By pointing to his Income Tax Returns to show taxable income of just Rs. 6 lakhs annually, Mukesh would have the Court believe that his expenses and lifestyle are financed by a sum of just Rs. 50,000 per month, leaving him with nothing to pay Purvi under the Impugned Judgement. On the facet of it, the import is farcical.

23. Mukesh’s pleadings are also laced with a deep sense of entitlement and transactional character, rather than adopting the approach of reasonably discharging the responsibility of a husband to pay maintenance to a wife he seeks to divorce, in accordance with the law. That Mukesh claims a set-off of monies purported to be owed to him by Purvi’s uncle against the maintenance that he is dutybound by law to pay to Purvi upon divorce, is indicative of this sense of entitlement and transactional approach. That apart, Mukesh has evidently been defaulting in payment of even interim maintenance amounts, necessitating execution proceedings. Yet, the claim that he has paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 21.65 lakhs during the course of the litigation, indicating that he has paid enough and needs to pay nothing more, reeks of the sense of entitlement and determination not to pay a rupee to a wife of 16 years, only because she chose to leave the matrimonial home when they got estranged in 2013.

24. We are unable to find much force in Mukesh’s submissions about the need to relieve him of the very basic and low-end liability of paying Rs. 50,000 per month, as directed by the Learned Family Court. As would be seen later in this judgement, Mukesh is a man of considerable means, and therefore his submissions on oath that he is leading a handto-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 in these two Interim Applications. 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 (the son lives with Mukesh). 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. As regards financing the son, Mukesh would contend that merely because his family may support him and his son, it does not indicate his own ability to pay Purvi and his daughter (who lives with Purvi) for their maintenance.

25. Countering Mukesh’s submissions, Purvi would bring to bear, simply from publicly available information and the material already forming part of the record, clear analysis to demonstrate 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. Purvi has always contended that despite the Learned Family Court having indicated that it would draw an adverse inference about either party not coming clean with full disclosure, the Impugned Judgement erroneously has granted maintenance of a mere Rs. 50,000 per month.

26. Purvi has brought up her daughter all by herself since 2013 and her son too for some time. At the time of filing the Purvi IA, the daughter was about 19 years of age. Purvi would contend that she has had to struggle financially and work very hard to bring up her daughter, having to depend on the resources and kindness of her brother and his family, when what is legitimately owed to her has been denied by the Learned Family Court. Even what is awarded to her is not being paid, with Mukesh forcing her to run from pillar to post, running up arrears.

27. The material brought to bear by Purvi would indicate that the Gada Family’s construction business claims in the public domain, to be sitting on a land bank, that even at ready reckoner rates maintained by Stamp Duty authorities, would be valued at over Rs. 1,083 crores. The broad assessment is quite convincing, going by the Gada Group’s own claims on its website and the assessment of such land resources at the basic ready reckoner rates.

28. While Purvi would contend that one could expect Mukesh’s share in the business to be one-fourth (25% since Popatlal, Kishore and Nilesh too also being involved), in our opinion, even if we take Mukesh’s share at a discounted 10%, it would mean that he is a man of undeniably powerful financial means with his share in the land bank alone coming to over Rs. 100 crores. Even half of that at 5% would mean over Rs. 50 crores just with the landholding. 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.

29. Purvi would indicate that two companies owned by Mukesh simply refrained from filing their financial statements and annual returns until the Impugned Judgement was passed, and that they then filed them with penalty for late filing, after the grant of divorce. That apart, it is seen that the Income Tax Returns indeed show his ownership of properties, which was not disclosed during the proceedings in the trial court.

30. The couple’s son, who lives with Mukesh, has been educated abroad. To explain this expenditure, Mukesh has sought to contend that all expenses of his son’s education were borne by Mukesh’s brother Nilesh. He would also point to an education loan that he has taken for his son’s education, which requires him to pay a hefty equated monthly instalment (“EMI”) to the Bank. However, analysis of the bank accounts forming part of the record would show that outflows from Mukesh to his brother Nilesh between September 2018 and July 2023 would add up to over Rs. 10 crores – hardly the picture of a man having to borrow from a Nilesh, a younger sibling, just to fund his son’s education.

31. The matrimonial home, which was a penthouse in which the couple lived, is claimed to have been sold, but the material on record indicates that such sale was a few days after the Impugned Judgement was passed. Yet, in the filings and pleadings in courts after the Impugned Judgement was passed, this address continues to be shown as the residential address of Mukesh. Businesses under the Command of the ‘Torchbearer’:

32. That apart, in the official website of the Gada Group, the father Popatlal is described as the “proud patriarch” of the Gada Group while Mukesh is depicted as the “torchbearer” of Popatlal. Mukesh’s own description on the official website is that “he has extensively invested his attention in the real estate and construction business under the aegis of Ace Constructions, Kubix Realties and many more”. It is stated that “Mukesh’s land acquisition and legal acumen has added tremendous growth to the group taking it to the next level”. There is no manner of doubt that when one compares this self-description to the world at large with the self-description in affirmations sworn on oath to this Court, Mukesh has come to Court with unclean hands.

33. The Gada Group’s website proudly claims that Kubix Realties (the enterprise that Mukesh has invested his attention in) is the flagship company of the group, through which many elite realty projects have been executed including Kubix Insignia which constructed row houses in Pune. The website also points to a partnership firm called G&S Associates owned by Mukesh and his brothers Nilesh and Kishore. The total area developed by this firm alone is said to be around half a million square feet. The Gada group is adding a new township of 550 residential flats near the Pune airport to its “continuously expanding list” of projects.

34. Purvi has sought to aggregate the total acreage of the land listed in the Gada Group’s website to arrive at a base computation of value, on the basis of the ready reckoner rates published by the Stamp Duty authorities (which is judicially known to be lower than market value) to assess the total value at over Rs. 1,083 crores. Being the torchbearer of the patriarch presiding over this group, the Mukesh IA sounds resoundingly false in the sworn statements of having no means, and clearly demonstrates and underlines the dishonesty in the pleadings filed by Mukesh in Court.

35. The Gada Group also has stated publicly that its financial services business is carried out through a company called Financial Architect Pvt. Ltd., managing portfolios of clients, with the assets under management of over Rs. 100 crores. It is noteworthy that this too is presided over by Mukesh, the proclaimed torchbearer of Popatlal, the Gada Group’s patriarch. The Gada Group also claims on its website that a stock broking company called Pune E Stock Broking (“PESB”) forms part of their group portfolio and as a member of multiple stock exchanges, it runs a full spectrum of financial services that any equity investor would need. Prima Facie Contrivances and Devices:

36. From the material brought on record by Purvi, including bank transfers from the multiple accounts of Mukesh and from publicly known ownership patterns, she has also been able to make a strong prima facie case of a pattern of transfer of interests from Mukesh to Nilesh. She would point to Kishore too being involved in divorce proceedings, thereby indicating that Nilesh appears to be the trusted receptacle of ownership interests of the family, when proportionate interests of Mukesh and Kishore are to be diluted with a view to suppress the depiction of their asset ownership interest to Courts. There is considerable force in this assertion – for example, Mukesh’s ownership in Mantra 29 Gold Coast LLP came down from 20% in 2019 to 5% in 2020. Kishore’s interests came down from 15% to 5%. Nilesh’s interests shots up from 15% to 40%. Another example is of Kubix Realties, which was said to be the flagship and the focus of Mukesh’s attention – the interests of Mukesh and Kishore came down from 27.04% and 47.70% respectively (in 2018) to 5% each, while Nilesh’s share shot up to 85% (by 2019).

37. Curiously, Mukesh, despite being the torchbearer of the patriarch of the Gada Group, has claimed on oath that his income is so low that he had to depend on his brother Nilesh to fund his own son’s education abroad. He would point to his annual taxable income in his Income Tax Returns being just Rs. 6 lakhs. It is noteworthy that in divorce proceedings that Kishore is engaged in, in the disclosure of assets filed by Kishore in terms of Rajnesh vs. Neha, Kishore would affirm on oath that one of the “third parties” who is providing financial support for the education of Kishore’s children is Mukesh. Indeed, Kishore would name, Popatlal and Nilesh too as such third parties, but it stands to reason that Mukesh’s claims of penury and having to depend for his own son’s education on Nilesh, rings hollow. It would also point to what is stated earlier in this judgement about business families being one unit in personal as well as professional lives, which has to be factored in by Courts. The cynicism with which Courts are approached for their perceived absence of financial literacy is writ large in the material on record.

38. In fact, what an overview of the facts would show is that each family member shows dependence on the other and they arrange and re-arrange their affairs to best preserve and conserve family assets within themselves enabling them to depict to Courts, a diminished picture of their financial strength solely for purposes of defending proceedings to pay maintenance. Contemporaneous Circumstantial Evidence:

39. We have also examined the material on record to see the contemporaneous evidence of Mukesh’s standard of living and lifestyle. This is necessary to get a prima facie sense of the matrimonial standard of living that can be reasonably inferred, and also to see if there is any element of truth in the stance adopted by Mukesh on oath before this Court, about his finances. The standard of proof for such exercise is the civil standard of preponderance of probability.

40. 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 (Rs. 50,000 per month). 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. For example, enjoyment of a party or a trip to Macau, could simply be an expense charged to the business. The money he 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.

41. On May 24, 2024, Mukesh and his son jointly celebrated their 51st and 24th birthdays. The photographs from this party would point to free-flowing alcohol and a throbbing party. Both are seen sporting Kenzo t-shirts. Even a bare look at the price of a Kenzo T-shirt from public information would indicate that a man claiming to earn just about Rs. 50,000 per month and thereby being unable to afford to pay his wife Rs. 50,000 per month would ill-afford a top luxury clothing brand – a simple crew neck t-shirt could cost upwards of Rs. 15,000 per piece. We must hasten to add that to our minds, there is nothing to be judgemental 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 judgement, 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 Learned 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. Expenses for Maintenance:

42. This brings us to the expenses that have had to be incurred by Purvi not just on herself but also on her daughter, whose parenting has been and is Purvi’s responsibility. Mukesh has not paid for the educational expenses of the daughter unlike paying for his son (of course claiming that he needed to take an educational loan and brotherly funding from Nilesh, even for this). The daughter has been entirely brought up by Purvi right from the time she was around 9 years old when she left the matrimonial home, with no support from Mukesh. The only flow of cash into her hands with arrears being run up was the interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month. While it is apparent that Purvi has indeed had to depend on her own brother and family in the process, 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.

43. This is not a case of a short marriage being followed by unreasonable demands at divorce – prima facie, the legitimacy of Purvi’s expectations for a fair and reasonable maintenance can simply not be undermined.

44. The material brought on record by Purvi also has a meticulous comparison of the assets seen in the Income Tax Returns of Mukesh which do not find mention in the affidavit disclosing assets filed by Mukesh before the Learned Family Court. Therefore, there is a strong prima facie case that the scale and nature of the lifestyle and real size of assets and resources at Mukesh’s command, have completely missed the Learned Family Court’s attention. Even the purported adverse inference that the Learned Family Court said it would draw, is evidently limited by the Learned Family Court’s own perception of what is necessary for maintenance of a divorcee and daughter after a 16-year marriage in a household of the means described above. Therefore, in our opinion, a strong prima facie case in Purvi’s favour as regards the scale of maintenance that ought to be paid, and the niggardly maintenance awarded to her, has been made out.

45. From the material brought on record, what is writ large is the fact that the multiple partnership firms, bodies corporate and the four male members of the Gada Family operate as one inextricable, interwoven and integrated set of associated enterprises and related parties. 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. Even by law, the financial statements of a person are not to be equated with the tax statements of that person. The financial balance sheet and the tax balance sheet are distinct and different. It is a trite feature of beneficial and welfare legislation that the statutory rights and protections that are made available by law must be purposively construed and if more than one approach is possible, the approach that furthers the remedy and provision of welfare, and suppresses the mischief must be adopted.

46. Therefore, by all counts, we are of the view that the maintenance amount awarded to Purvi by the Learned Family Court is not at all a well-informed one. The considerable financial strength that informed the standard of living for 16 years has completely missed the attention of the Learned Family Court – in large part because of Mukesh not having made a complete and truthful disclosure of the real sweep and scale of the financial interests, and instead presenting a dishonest picture asking to be relieved even of a low-end maintenance that has been awarded.

47. To cite just an example, Purvi has compared assets and bank accounts set out in the disclosure affidavit of Mukesh with the asset and bank accounts seen in the Income Tax Returns. This has been discussed above. That apart, as a matter of law, a partnership firm and its partners do not have separate and independent existence unlike a body corporate and its shareholders. The strength of the partnership firms where Mukesh has been a partner at all times material to these proceedings, and tax returns of such firms have missed attention of the Learned Family Court. It is important to examine the full picture in its entirety to bring about a realistic estimation of maintenance amount to be awarded, and this has been undermined by the shortcomings and lacunae in Mukesh’s filings, by not coming to Court with clean hands. Mukesh’s Counter-contentions:

48. Quite apart from Mukesh’s prayers for reducing the maintenance to NIL, pending hearing and disposal of the cross appeals, it is important to deal with Mukesh’s contentions on why Purvi should not be entitled to enhanced maintenance at Rs. 5 lakh per month. Mukesh’s prime ground towards this end is that Purvi is engaged in a business called “Eco Dosti” which is run from her brother Ankit Shah’s shop. Mukesh contends that Purvi is running a business of landscaping, beautification, plantation and maintenance called Tarulata Greens. By Mukesh’s own claims, these two businesses and Purvi’s work as a private tutor to children, would fetch her over Rs. 1 lakh per month. He would go a step further and claim that Purvi earned substantial sums during her married life from gardening and landscaping, and therefore, she ought to fend for herself and make efforts to earn and not be expected to be maintained by Mukesh.

49. The aforesaid objection has to be stated to be rejected. To make his assertions about Purvi’s purported business interests, Mukesh brings nothing bear other than a trademark registration of Eco Dosti. This is how he claims that it is a business run from Purvi’s brother’s shop. It is also evident that as Mukesh’s wife, she was given some role in landscaping work for Mukesh’s real estate projects (and not with the world at large), but there is nothing to bring to bear a real professional engagement of Purvi even by the Gada Group on an arms’ length basis, giving a steady stream of professional income to Purvi, a female member of the Gada Family. In fact, even assuming the Gada Group paid her a sizeable professional income, it would stand to reason she was getting this opportunity primarily for having been Mukesh’s wife. Upon divorce, this would evidently come to an end.

50. For her part, Purvi would explain that indeed a brand called Eco Dosti was registered but no material business worth the name could or has been transacted. Mukesh’s written submissions are peppered heavily with references to Eco Dosti and Tarulata Greens. Be that as it may, we are of the view that even by Mukesh’s own showing such business would hardly be a material source of income, if despite all such work, Purvi also has to work as a private tutor to make ends meet to earn just about Rs. 1 lakh per month.

51. With Mukesh’s resources it would not have been difficult to have Purvi’s lifestyle investigated to bring to bear far more believable input about her purported income. We would think Mukesh, with best efforts, has not been able to come up with anything better than a trademark registration. Worse, from Mukesh’s own claims of Purvi running two businesses and working as a home tutor, it is evident that he himself admits that to barely earn Rs. 1 lakh per month (as claimed by him), Purvi would need to run three jobs to make ends meet. The evidence before the Family Court indicates a statement by the son that private tuitions earned her about Rs. 45,000 per month, but to our mind, this does not turn the needle in Mukesh’s favour. 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. It is true that for a divorced wife to ensure her daughter gets a basically acceptable standard education and life, she may need to undertake multiple jobs to earn just Rs. 1 lakh per month.

52. Worse, Mukesh would use the hard efforts of Purvi to give her daughter a decent upbringing, as the reason not to support them. It is claimed by Mukesh 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. 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.

53. Dealing with Purvi’s listed monthly expenses of Rs. 1,07,000, Mukesh, who adorns Kenzo T-shirts, would allege that these are “exorbitant amounts” being spent by her. According to him, household expenses of Rs. 55,000 per month and miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 40,000 per month is exorbitant once she is separated from him. Mukesh, as a father, also finds fault with the expenses for the daughter being pegged at Rs. 6.25 lakh per annum. Himself a trekker, he would fault his daughter who also treks, spending about Rs. 8,000 per month on fitness training and yoga; Rs. 7,000 per month on violin classes; and Rs. 3,000 per month on cooking and baking classes. Repeatedly calling these exorbitant, in our opinion, and that too by a person of Mukesh’s lifestyle, materially undermines Mukesh’s credibility and emphasises a mean and vindictive approach to the welfare of his own daughter for no reason other than the fact that she is parented by Purvi.

54. Other objections from Mukesh also are prima facie found to be without adequate merit, to make a dent on Purvi’s plea for a realistic interim maintenance. For example, he submits that Purvi has suppressed her demat and securities trading account with Zerodha Broking, even while indicating that her own disclosures point to some odd transactions in securities. Mukesh would counter the references in an architectural magazine to his luxury home by pleading that it is not owned by him, but that it is a house belonging to his mother.

55. All of these together underline our approach articulated above in making a reasonable assessment of the standard of living of the married couple for an empirical indication of what a reasonable maintenance standard should be.

56. Mukesh would take credit for having paid insurance premium on insurance policies that also cover Purvi and the daughter. He admits that he paid the premiums only until 2016 and did not pay thereafter, but now undertakes that he could reimburse Purvi for it. Of course, he would claim in the same breath that when the policy matures, he should get the amount. Such payment of premiums would hardly matter when one is considering a case for maintenance payable to a divorced wife by a man of such sizeable means as Mukesh. We are not swayed by just the fact that Mukesh can afford to pay, but we are indeed convinced, applying well-known principles declared by Courts in maintenance law, including in Rajnesh vs. Neha, that Mukesh’s divorced wife is entitled to maintain a standard of living similar to the one she enjoyed during matrimony. We are conscious that the interim applications deal with interim maintenance pending a final hearing on the appeals.

57. Mukesh has invoked the need to service an educational loan he has taken for funding his son’s education (apart from claiming that he depends on Nilesh to contribute to the son’s education). He would claim that the educational loan has an EMI of Rs. 1,06,235, which clearly undermines his reliance on his Income Tax Returns to indicate that he only earns just over Rs. 50,000 per month (Rs. 6 lakhs in a year). One would wonder how he would pay the EMI with such a low income. One may avail of an educational loan even if one is not in dire need of the loan. One may avail of such loans to project the liability too. Going by the financial means at the command of Mukesh, the reliance on the educational loan does not matter to our judgement of his false claim of leading a hand-to-mouth existence.

58. Other contentions of Mukesh are about justifying the shifting degrees of ownership among the Gada siblings stating that they are backed by underlying business considerations. Suffice it to say, even if such shifting of ownership stakes is fully paid for among the siblings on an arms’ length basis, Mukesh would need to be in command of seriously material wealth, which would belie his claims of relative penury.

59. Responding to Kishore’s statement on oath that he, among others, depends on Mukesh for the financial needs of Kishore’s own children’s education, Mukesh would underline the very logic that appeals to us. Mukesh would contend that “an inference must be made that it is the family who is financially assisting with the education of the children”. This is precisely why the amounts needed for leading a standard of living by such a family’s male member, needs to be assessed as being commensurate with the assessment of a reasonable maintenance for a spouse of such male member for 16 years. This precise reasoning is what has resonated with us for the reasons articulated above.

60. We are equally taken aback with Mukesh invoking a claim of a set-off for a loan purportedly given to Purvi’s uncle and claiming that interest due to him on that count should be set off against his wife’s maintenance. 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.

61. Purvi would submit that the loan on which Mukesh seeks to leverage his obligation to maintain his divorced wife is a loan given to the offspring of a sibling of Popatlal’s paternal grandfather. Even while all this can be examined in the final hearing, in our opinion, there can never be a set-off on loans given by the husband to an uncle of a divorced wife, with the maintenance dues payable by the husband to the divorced wife. Reasonable Assessment of Maintenance:

62. We have to now apply our mind to what is a reasonable amount of maintenance that ought to be paid. We have examined the expenses projected by Purvi. To our mind, these are not prohibitive or exorbitant at all. On the contrary, going by the standard of living that a child of Mukesh should reasonably expect to have, we find Purvi’s estimation frugal and reasonable. The amounts indicated by her would typically fall in the ambit of a frugal professional middle class mother.

63. 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. The Learned Family Court has not granted anything separately in respect of the daughter. In our opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000 per month is hardly a reasonable and logical quantum of maintenance.

64. The plethora of case law cited need not be dealt with in acute detail, inasmuch as what falls for our consideration is the appropriate interim measure in the form of maintenance that appeals to a reasonable exercise of discretion, which is always informed by the specific facts and circumstances of the case before the Court. Such exercise of discretion is always a matter of appreciation of the facts of the case. Bearing in mind the strength of the prima facie case in Purvi’s favour, in this case, grave and irreparable harm would continue to be occasioned on Purvi if a reasonable assessment is not made. We find that there would be no inconvenience to Mukesh by paying a slightly larger sum of small change towards the maintenance amounts claimed by Purvi.

65. In that view of the matter, we have to consider an appropriate interim measure pending disposal of the cross appeals. The Impugned Judgement was passed two years ago after prolonged trial proceedings. The two cross appeals would take considerable time to be heard and disposed of. Meanwhile, it is totally unfair and unjust for the divorced wife to have been given a maintenance amount that is not at all commensurate with the expenses that have to be incurred by the mother of a girl who would just be stepping into a potential professional education in order to stand on her own feet. Purvi has already been at the receiving end of Mukesh, who is evidently a man of strong financial means, and yet letting the maintenance payment fall in arrears.

66. Bearing in mind the objective of welfare of a divorced wife that underlies the duty to pay maintenance under the HMA, we are of the considered opinion that even assuming the findings on merits by the Learned Family Court for the grant of divorce are entirely correct, the maintenance awarded is simply paltry and not commensurate at all with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly in Rajnesh vs. Neha. HAMA vs HMA:

67. Before we conclude, we have to state that at this stage, prima facie, we are unimpressed by the contention that while the application before the Learned Family Court had been made invoking HAMA, the Impugned Judgement grants maintenance under the HMA, without a specific application being made invoking the HMA. While this point of law would be considered at the stage of final hearing, one cannot lose sight of the object and purpose of the legislation involved. The HMA requires an application for maintenance to be made. Purvi did so. She may have sought it under HAMA but that does not mean she made no application for maintenance. The Learned Family Court was prima facie fully entitled to convert the interim maintenance that was being paid under HAMA into maintenance under HMA.

68. Prima facie, it is open to the Learned Family Court to treat the application for maintenance as an application made in the context of the divorce proceedings and grant maintenance in the context of granting divorce. To make the argument about the incorrect legislation having been invoked in the application and to contend that Purvi ought to have been non-suited for purposes of maintenance under the HMA is to adopt an approach akin to making contentions under a fiscal statute and not under a welfare legislation. Directions and Order:

69. Considering all the facts involved, including 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; the enhanced amount indicated in the claim; 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.

70. In other words, Purvi shall be entitled to an aggregate monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000 per month. The Impugned Order shall stand, as an interim measure, modified to this extent, during the pendency of the cross appeals, and be capable of execution for such enhanced amount.

71. Taking into account the history of arrears being built up by Mukesh despite being able to afford it, we direct that maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000 per month for the next twelve calendar months starting from November 1, 2025, shall be remitted to Purvi within four weeks of uploading this judgement on this Court’s website.

72. Therefore, to summarise, in our opinion:a. Mukesh has not come to Court with clean hands. There is not only material suppression of his financial strength to undermine the application of legal principles for considering the quantum of maintenance, there are also positive misstatements in his claims to be a person of poor means unable to pay even the low maintenance originally granted on interim basis and converted into the final permanent alimony; b. Purvi has made out a strong prima facie case that the maintenance awarded to her is minuscule and not commensurate with reasonable living and parenting expenses that any reasonable person in her position would need; c. The marriage of Purvi and Mukesh having lasted 16 years with the prime of life having been invested in the marriage is an important factor that has not been taken into consideration by the Learned Family Court when assessing the permanent alimony, and that needs to be corrected; d. Purvi is hereby granted interim maintenance of Rs. 3,50,000 per month. A sum of Rs. 42,00,000 towards the 12 months starting November 1, 2025 shall be deposited by Mukesh into Purvi’s account within four weeks of the upload of this judgement on the Court’s website. The bank Account details are as follows: Bank Name: Union Bank of India Account No: 315702010836577 Account Holder: Mrs. Purvi Mukesh Gada IFSC Code: UBIN0531570 BRANCH: Bazaargate Branch, Fort. e. All the aforesaid findings are prima facie in nature and shall be subject to any adjustments that may be considered appropriate when disposing of the cross appeals finally.

73. With the aforesaid directions, both the captioned Interim Applications are finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

74. This judgment will be Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by [SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.]