JUDGMENT G.S. PATEL, J. This appeal is directed against the Order and Judgment dated 28th June 2006 passed by the Family court, Bandra, Mumbai. As the parties have obtained a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the surviving controversy in this appeal is very narrow. It relates only to the question of maintenance claimed by the appellant and the ownership of residential premises, viz., Flat No. 31, Manju Tower, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 ("the Lokhandwala Complex flat"). 2. The parties were married in Mumbai on 2nd April 1995 according to Arya Samaj rites. The respondent had converted from Christianity to Hinduism. The appellant was a Hindu. They have no children. 3. On 5th November 2003 the respondent filed M.J. Petition No. A-1783 of 2003 in the Family Court in Mumbai for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. That Petition also contained a prayer for a declaration that the respondent was the true owner of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. On 20th February 2004, the appellant filed an interim application bearing No. 28 of 2004 in the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the respondent. Several further interim proceedings followed. On 5th September 2005, the parties filed consent terms in the Family Court at Mumbai. The respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed to be converted into a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The consent terms were limited to the question of a divorce, and expressly kept open all other related issues, viz., the appellant's claim for maintenance and the question of ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. These were to be decided on merits. A written statement was filed and evidence was taken by the Family Court. By the order under Appeal, dated 28th June 2006, the Family Court passed an order in terms of the consent terms as regards divorce; declared the respondent-husband to be real owner of the Lokhandwala Complex flat; and directed the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of decree. 4. The wife has appealed. The respondent-husband filed cross objections on 13th February 2007. 4. The wife has appealed. The respondent-husband filed cross objections on 13th February 2007. On 27th September 2006 this Court issued notice to the respondent and passed an ad-interim order restraining him from parting with possession and creating any third party rights or encumbrances in respect of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. On 15th December 2006, both parties were heard. The appeal was admitted. A Civil Application No. 204 of 2006 was disposed of directing the respondent to pay to the appellant maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month during the pendency of the appeal. The earlier ad-interim order was also continued. It seems that the respondent defaulted in payment of this monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant instituted proceedings for recovery of arrears. These are not immediately germane to this Appeal, and it is sufficient to note that the order of interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- was confirmed and continues till date. 5. The pleadings before the Family Court were filed before the parties arrived at a settlement and filed consent terms taking a divorce by mutual consent. These pleadings therefore also relate to the respondent's claim for restitution of conjugal rights. In view of the consent terms, that portion of the pleadings relating to the respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights is now irrelevant. However, the pleadings also relate to the question of ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex flat (raised by the respondent) and the appellant's entitlement to monthly maintenance. Parties led evidence after the consent terms were filed. The evidence is, therefore, limited to the issues of ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex flat and maintenance. 6. The respondent's petition for restitution of conjugal rights indicates that during the early years of this marriage, not only were the parties happy together, but they also enjoyed a very comfortable, if not lavish, lifestyle. The respondent claims that the couple took several holidays in India. The couple's friend circle expanded and there was a considerable amount of socialising. The respondent claims that the appellant started attending kitty parties and that he did not object to this. 7. The respondent claims that at his parents’ suggestion, he agreed to buy a residential flat on ownership basis. His father, he says, agreed to help him. They selected the flat in question, viz., the Lokhandwala Complex flat. The respondent says that he bought this flat in 1998 for Rs. 7. The respondent claims that at his parents’ suggestion, he agreed to buy a residential flat on ownership basis. His father, he says, agreed to help him. They selected the flat in question, viz., the Lokhandwala Complex flat. The respondent says that he bought this flat in 1998 for Rs. 9 1akhs, and that this amount was paid by him alone taking loans from his father, his brother, his friends and even his father-in-law. He claims that he has also received some financial help from his employer. The respondent also says that for the purposes of tax savings, he prepared income tax returns and supporting documents in the name of the appellant. These showed her as an employee in her brother's firm although she did not actually work there. He says that he did this so that he could return the loan he had taken from the appellant's father, i.e., his father-in-law, while minimising the incidence of tax. He claims this to be tax planning. He maintains, however, that the entire consideration in the purchase of Lokhandwala Complex flat came from him alone. The flat - and this is critical - was bought in the name of the appellant. In his Petition, this is how the respondent puts it: thus the Petitioner is the owner of the said flat and the Respondent is the ostensible owner or benami of the Petitioner in respect of the said flat. The Petitioner, therefore, is the real owner of the said flat and as such declarations from this Hon'ble Court that the Petitioner is the real owner of the said flat. 8. There is no dispute that after the Lokhandwala Complex flat was purchased, the appellant and the respondent moved to that flat and started residing there. The respondent claims that the flat was lavishly refurnished and decorated. He claims to have spent an amount of Rs.6 to 8 lakhs on this renovation. The house had several electronic items and appliances including two televisions, an air conditioner, a washing machine, a refrigerator, a microwave, a DVD player, a VCR, a CD player, expensive antiques and other objects that the respondent values over Rs. 2 to 4 lakhs. In the next several pages of the Petition from paragraphs 10 to 16, there are allegations against the appellant regarding matrimonial offences. We are not now concerned with these. 2 to 4 lakhs. In the next several pages of the Petition from paragraphs 10 to 16, there are allegations against the appellant regarding matrimonial offences. We are not now concerned with these. The respondent then says that he is a high school drop-out and that he was, at the relevant time employed, and earned over Rs.10,000/- per month. On these allegations, the respondent sought an order declaring him to be the real owner of the Lokhandwala Complex flat and of all the objects, furniture and fixtures in that flat; and an interim injunction preventing the appellant and her parents from disturbing the respondent's joint possession of that flat. It is to be noted that at no point did the respondent claim to have exclusive possession of that flat. Therefore, to put it in a nutshell, the respondent's petition proceeded on the basis that he was the true owner of the Lokhandwala Complex flat; that the appellant was the benami holder since the flat stood in her name; and that both of them were in joint possession of that flat. 9. The appellant filed a written statement on 6th August 2004. In this, the appellant says that in May 1994 she was working at an advertising company at Malad. The respondent was, at that time, a manager with "V. Bhatia International", and this company had business dealings with the advertising agency where the appellant worked. She and the respondent met at work. At that time, the respondent told her that he earned Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month plus commission. The appellant quit her job in July 1994, and less than a year later, she and the respondent were married. The appellant claims that while the wedding expenses were borne by the respondent's parents, the appellant's parents gifted her gold jewellery, etc., in addition to expensive items of crockery, cutlery, kitchenware, furniture and gifts for the respondent's family. Leaving aside the several al1egations regarding the respondent's conduct, what is material is the appellant's categorical assertion that some time in the year 1999 the couple moved to the Lokhandwala Complex flat. 10. In paragraph 18 of her written statement, the appellant says that some time in April or May 2002 the respondent opened a proprietary beauty salon called "Fringe Salon". The renovation and decoration costs of this salon were, according to the appellant, about Rs. 4,00,000/-. 10. In paragraph 18 of her written statement, the appellant says that some time in April or May 2002 the respondent opened a proprietary beauty salon called "Fringe Salon". The renovation and decoration costs of this salon were, according to the appellant, about Rs. 4,00,000/-. The appellant says that her brother paid for this and has not yet been repaid. 11. The appellant claims that the respondent cheated her, and even, she suspects, illicitly took money from her account. He is extremely affluent. According to her, at the time when she filed her written statement, the respondent earned about Rs. 1,00,000/- per months from V. Bhatia International. In addition he had his income from the beauty salon at Juhu, an upmarket area, and this generated a net income of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The respondent spent money extravagantly and had a lavish lifestyle. He owned a Cielo car valued at Rs.7,00,000/- and also a Maruti Esteem. He had three mobile phones on which he talked "for obscenely long hours", running up huge bills. He was in the habit of dining out and was much given to luxuries. She, on the other hand, had been reduced to working as a part time faculty member at the British Institute at Churchgate at a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. 12. This much is the respondent's affirmative case. In paragraph 39 of the written statement, the respondent deals with the respondent's averments regarding the purchase and ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex Flat. It is necessary to reproduce that short paragraph in its entirety. "39. With reference to Para 8, the respondent admits that the petitioner has purchased the said flat out of his funds. The respondent states that the petitioner has created her income tax file to save tax and she has no idea about the same as he carries out all the financial transactions. The respondent states that petitioner has been mismanaging her finances and has thus put her in a precarious position. The respondent has no comments on the rest of the contents of the said para." (emphasis supplied) 13. On the pleadings as originally stood, six issues were framed on 22nd February 2005. After the consent terms were filed on 5th September 2005 these issues were recast as follows: 1) Whether the said consent terms are to be allowed? The respondent has no comments on the rest of the contents of the said para." (emphasis supplied) 13. On the pleadings as originally stood, six issues were framed on 22nd February 2005. After the consent terms were filed on 5th September 2005 these issues were recast as follows: 1) Whether the said consent terms are to be allowed? Yes 2) Whether the parties are entitled to a decree of divorce by Yes mutual consent under Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955? 3) Is the petitioner entitled to a declaration that he is the real owner Yes of Flat No. 31, Manju Towers, 3rd Cross Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai together with furniture, fixture etc.? 4) Is the respondent entitled to claim maintenance for herself from Yes, at the the petitioner? rate of Rs.7,000/- If yes, what amount? p.m. In this appeal, we are not concerned with issues No. 1 and 2, but only with issues No. 3 and 4. 14. The respondent filed a claim affidavit or an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief on 25th January 2006, i.e., after the filing of the consent terms on 5th September 2005. This affidavit therefore relates to the surviving issues of ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex flat and maintenance. In this affidavit the respondent claimed that he was advised by his Chartered Accountant that in order to own a flat he should show "accounted amounts". He consulted his father, who agreed to help as did his brother and friends. Then come the following averments: "2. ... I, therefore, decided to purchase the house in the name of the respondent and all the finances were routed through the respondent. Even my father-in-law also agreed to contribute to the extent of Rs.3 lacs which was paid by me through the accounts of the respondent. I prepared the income tax documents and file returns. I arranged the finance and I bought the flat on 21-04-1998 for a total consideration of Rs.9 Lacs. The agreement was entered into between the seller and the respondent. The respondent had not paid or contributed a single penny in purchase of the flat. The flat was purchased in the name of the respondent only out of my dedication and love for the respondent. A bank account bearing No. 19436 of Union Bank of India, Goregaon (East) branch was opened in the name of respondent. The respondent had not paid or contributed a single penny in purchase of the flat. The flat was purchased in the name of the respondent only out of my dedication and love for the respondent. A bank account bearing No. 19436 of Union Bank of India, Goregaon (East) branch was opened in the name of respondent. Another bank account bearing No. 5200 was opened in the name of the respondent in Development Credit Bank of Goregaon (East) branch. All finances of my father, brother and friends were arranged through the said documents and all moneys were deposited so as to purchase the flat in the name of the respondent. At all material times the respondent was only a housewife and she was not working anywhere. During the period between 1997 and 1998 sufficient amounts was deposited in the accounts and I had prepared the income tax records and investments in the name of the respondent with the planning that the flat is purchased in her name. These amounts were taken from my father, from my brother and friends. A sum of Rs. 3 Lacs was taken from the respondent's father. The entire accounts and financial arrangements and investment were done by me in the name of the respondent. The cheques were signed by the respondent but the payments and the cheque book was always in my custody. The entire financial affairs were looked after by me alone. I am producing the bank passbook of the said accounts to show that the moneys for the purchase of flat were paid." 15. This is a categorical and specific case put up by the respondent. We will presently consider his cross examination on this aspect, and also, importantly what the appellant says in response in her own testimony. The respondent then said that although had repaid the loan from his father-in-law, those from his family and friends were still outstanding. He alone paid the society outgoings. He claimed that the appellant had always accepted that the flat belongs to him alone. He also claimed that since the appellant was working, and staying with her parents, she did not have need for or use of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. He alone paid the society outgoings. He claimed that the appellant had always accepted that the flat belongs to him alone. He also claimed that since the appellant was working, and staying with her parents, she did not have need for or use of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. There was also an allegation that she had a relationship with another gentleman and that she stayed with him, but we have overlooked that as it does not have any direct bearing on the issues at hand and there is no evidence at all of it. 16. The respondent admitted that he was employed with V. Bhatia International. He claimed that his salary was only Rs. 6,000/- and while he admitted that he did own and run the Fringe Salon beauty parlour, his income from that enterprise was only Rs. 40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per annum (not per month). He claimed that his total income from all sources was not more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs per annum. 17. There followed an elaborate cross examination of the respondent, much of which was directed towards the question of his financial status and ability and the ownership of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. The respondent, in his cross examination, claimed that his income during 1995-1996 was Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per year Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 2. He said that he was getting his salary in cash. He did not sign any voucher or any receipt. He could not prove this statement. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 3. He was also unable to produce his returns from the year 2000. He claimed to have owned a Maruti 800 motor vehicle, and said that he believed that "he may have purchased" a second-hand Cielo vehicle in 1997-1998. He denied having either a Maruti Esteem or Maruti 1000 and said that this car belonged to his employer, Sudhir Bhatia. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 4. The respondent further claimed that in 1998-1999 his taxable income was Rs. 1,50,000/-, and his monthly income was Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, varying from month to month depending on sales. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 7. He also claimed that this was his income from all sources and not just from V. Bhatia International. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 8. He then said that his present income (i.e., in 2003) was Rs. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 7. He also claimed that this was his income from all sources and not just from V. Bhatia International. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 8. He then said that his present income (i.e., in 2003) was Rs. 1,50,000/- per year, on an average no more than Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. He claimed to have sold a car for Rs.25,000/- and deposited the amount received in cash in his bank account. The respondent then claimed that the Maruti Esteem vehicle belonged to his father and not to him personally. 18. At this point, the testimony of the respondent in cross examination becomes increasingly unreliable. He claimed that he received salary from a sister concern of V. Bhatia International, viz., Seth International, but he received this salary in cash. He did not disclose the amount. He claimed to have a single mobile phone, the bills for which, he claimed, were also paid in cash and were not more than Rs. 1,000/-. He then admitted to having a second mobile phone. Confronted with a bill for his first mobile phone (Orange, now Vodafone), he admitted that it was for a much higher amount, i.e., Rs.4,000/-. He was then confronted with yet another document marked as Exhibit-81 and was forced to admit that, in fact, he had a third mobile phone. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 14. 19. The respondent was then cross examined on his business dealings and admitted to having connections with a company called Herbal Products. For this company he had an account with the Development Credit Rank, Goregaon, Mumbai but claimed not to know the details of that account. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 16. On further questioning he admitted to having savings account with Dena Bank, Goregaon and Bank of Punjab. His other business, Fringe Salon, had an account with HDFC Bank which was later closed. He then categorically stated that he has savings accounts with HSBC and Citibank. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 20. The respondent was confronted with documents showing the particulars of his operation of some of these accounts. From this it seems that the respondent made substantial deposits in cash. He was unable to explain these. He then categorically stated that he has savings accounts with HSBC and Citibank. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 20. The respondent was confronted with documents showing the particulars of his operation of some of these accounts. From this it seems that the respondent made substantial deposits in cash. He was unable to explain these. There were also withdrawals for payments made to AC Resorts which seems to have been some sort of a holiday timeshare membership, and for which the respondent said he paid an amount of Rs.2.3 lakhs. Several other substantial transactions were shown to the respondent which he could not explain. Cross examination of the Respondent, paragraph 21. 20. In paragraph 24 of the cross examination, the respondent admitted to holding credit cards of ICICI Bank, HSBC, American Express, and HDFC Bank. He first contended that these were the only credit cards that he had. He then went back on this statement and said that, in addition, he also had a Manhattan credit card, a Standard Chartered Bank credit card and a SBI Bank credit card. He also said that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was transferred from the appellant's account to his account. The appellant had obtained a loan. She paid the premium of a life insurance policy from this loan and the rest was then transferred to the respondent because the couple needed cash. He later said that it was he who paid the entire premium, and made all investments. Cross-examination of the Respondent, paragraph 30. 21. The respondent was then confronted with details of withdrawals, specifically four entries in Exhibit 114, the passbook for his account at the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Versova Branch. Paragraph 27 of the Respondent's cross-examination. There was a deposit of over Rs. 1.47 lakhs on 1st July 2004 and a withdrawal two days later on 3rd July 2004 of Rs. 1.4 lakhs. He first said that he had no recollection of these transactions. He then said that the deposit was a personal loan from HSBC. Another amount of Rs.28,247 was shown as a deposit on 4th October 2004. This, he said, was another personal loan, this time from Citi Financial. On 2nd December 2004, Rs.1.5 lakhs were transferred from some other account to his account. He had no explanation for this. He then said that the deposit was a personal loan from HSBC. Another amount of Rs.28,247 was shown as a deposit on 4th October 2004. This, he said, was another personal loan, this time from Citi Financial. On 2nd December 2004, Rs.1.5 lakhs were transferred from some other account to his account. He had no explanation for this. Similarly, Exhibit 115, the original passbook of the respondent's account at the Bank of Punjab, Lokhandwala Branch, showed a large payout of Rs.5497/- which the respondent claimed was a payment of his Orange (now Vodafone) mobile bill. The same exhibit also showed a deposit of Rs. 25,837/- on 23rd August 2005; the respondent said that this "may be regarding maturity of ICICI Bonds." Paragraph 28 of the Respondent's cross-examination. From the evidence taken as a whole, it is clear that the respondent had an unusual number of bank accounts: with HSBC, Citibank, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bank of Punjab, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Development Credit Bank and HDFC. In addition, and apart from his subscription to a holiday time share membership, the respondent admitted to having a membership of a health club at an annual membership fees of Rs.9,000/-. Respondent's cross-examination, paragraph 36. The respondent was also cross examined extensively on further transactions in his bank accounts, and bills to various credit cards companies. Respondent's cross-examination, paragraphs 53 to 57. 22. The affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the appellant does not throw further light on the respondent's financial status and ability. This is perhaps understandable since she could not be expected to know all the details relating to his financial affairs. The appellant, too, was also cross examined. She admits that she worked with the British Institute. The most important portion of that cross examination is in paragraph 14, in which the appellant categorically states that the Lokhandwala Complex flat was purchased sometime in the year 1998 but that she had not contributed directly to the purchase price of the flat. She admits that her father had lent her some money (presumably towards the purchase of the flat) but was unaware of any financial transactions in respect of that transaction. 23. In the course of the hearing in the Appeal before us Ms. She admits that her father had lent her some money (presumably towards the purchase of the flat) but was unaware of any financial transactions in respect of that transaction. 23. In the course of the hearing in the Appeal before us Ms. Irani, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, demonstrated from the record and proceedings that the documents marked as evidence before the Trial Court showed that the respondent had far more substantial assets than claimed. Four documents marked as exhibits in evidence are, in particular, strong indicators of the respondent's assets. These are Exhibits 174, 114, 115 and 136, being the accounts statements for the respondent's accounts at HSBC, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bank of Punjab and Citibank. Indeed, it appears that the respondent had as many as 12 various bank accounts at various times. The balances of each of these bank accounts were shown to be substantial. The average balance in these four accounts taken together for the periods for which the accounts statements were marked in evidence is as much as over Rs. 1.5 lakhs per month. In addition, the expenditure on the respondent's salon (Fringe Salon) was shown as being over Rs. 50,000/- per month. The respondent had also substantial expenses of mobile bills. The Orange/Vodafone mobile bill averaged over Rs. 6,000/- per month between September 2004 and February 2005. The Reliance mobile bill for two months in 2003 was over Rs.18,000/-. There seem to have been at least four mobile phones in use by the respondent. In addition, as we have seen, the respondent invested over Rs.2 lakhs in a holiday time share. 24. We have, with the assistance of Ms. Irani and Ms. Dias, learned Advocate for the respondent, carefully considered the record and the judgment, under Appeal. The learned judge examined all the material on record including the evidence that the respondent routinely spent lavishly on his credit cards. In one instance he spent Rs.30,000/- within a span of three days. The learned Judge concluded that the financial documents and taxes returns disclosed by the respondent would not necessarily reflect the true state of his financial affairs. The learned judge awarded maintenance at Rs.7,000/- per month. 25. By its order dated 4th February 2011, this court increased the amount of monthly maintenance to Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned Judge concluded that the financial documents and taxes returns disclosed by the respondent would not necessarily reflect the true state of his financial affairs. The learned judge awarded maintenance at Rs.7,000/- per month. 25. By its order dated 4th February 2011, this court increased the amount of monthly maintenance to Rs.10,000/- per month. That order was passed at an interim stage on Civil Application No. 111 of 2010 in the present Appeal. On a more careful scrutiny of the record and proceedings as also the documents marked as evidence, we believe that this is a fit case where that amount of maintenance should be increased. There is no manner of doubt in our minds that, at the relevant time, the respondent had significant assets. There is nothing to show that these have in any way decreased or diminished. From his cross examination, it appears that the respondent has been less than candid in disclosing his financial position. In assessing financial ability, one must have regard not only to disclosed sources of income but to the true state of affairs as revealed by cross examination. The respondent held a number of credit cards. There were large debits to his credit cards. He had a quite unusual number of bank accounts. All these seemed to show, at least at the relevant time, substantial balances. Some of those accounts were at premier multinational banks, which require high minimum balances to be maintained. The respondent subscribed to various services such as holiday time shares. These could hardly be said to be essential or necessary expenses. The only inference that can be drawn from the preceding discussion is that the respondent has suppressed evidence and information of his true income from the Family Court. Considering the respondent's spending patterns, the holdings in his many bank accounts and the life style he maintained, even at the time when Family Court decided the matter in 2006, his income could not have been much less than Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- p.m. It is undoubtedly much higher today. A wife is entitled to be maintained in a life style consistent with that of her husband. A wife is entitled to be maintained in a life style consistent with that of her husband. Having regard, too, to the rising cost of living today, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the respondent is directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of this judgment. 26. As regards the Lokhandwala Complex flat, there is the admission by the appellant that the flat had been purchased by the respondent. Before the Trial Court, the appellant sought to amend her written statement to contend that she was the owner of the flat and that the entire payment had been made out of her account. Given the explicit and unambiguous wording of her original written statement, the Trial Court rightly did not permit this amendment application. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant now invokes the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Section 4 of that act expressly bars any suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person claiming to be the real owner of the suit property. As against this is the categorical admission in pleadings and evidence by the appellant, and noted by the learned judge in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the judgment under appeal, that she has not directly contributed to the purchase of the flat. In our view, and in this state of the record, the learned single judge had little option but to grant the respondent the declaration he sought in respect of the Lokhandwala Complex flat. 27. In his petition, the respondent himself has admitted that the Lokhandwala Complex flat is in the parties' joint possession. In the cross objections, however, the respondent claims that the appellant has left the flat and is staying with her parents. There is no material before us to so indicate. It is, therefore, not possible to hold at this stage that the respondent is in exclusive possession of the Lokhandwalla Complex flat. 28. In the result, the cross objections filed by the respondent are dismissed while the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent shall pay to the appellant an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of this order. 28. In the result, the cross objections filed by the respondent are dismissed while the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent shall pay to the appellant an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of this order. The impugned order dated 28th June 2006 in so far as it grants the respondent a declaration in relation to the Lokhandwala Complex flat is affirmed. The appeal and the cross objections are disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.