JUDGMENT : A.K. Menon, J. By this common judgment we dispose of both the Family Court Appeals and the Civil Applications taken out therein taken out therein. These appeals arise from the judgment and decree of the Third Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-264 of 2002. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce whereby the marriage solemnised between the wife (referred to as "Respondent") and the husband (referred to as "Petitioner") on 19.5.1993 was dissolved by the decree of divorce and the Petitioner husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the Respondent wife towards maintenance and further a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to their daughter. The Respondent has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance. FACTUAL OVERVIEW:-- 2. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was an arranged marriage. After the marriage the Respondent proceeded to reside with the Petitioner in Nigeria. Both the parties are from business families. The Petitioner husband was at all the material times a resident of Lagos, Nigeria. There he initially worked for gain. Thereafter, set up his own business with local support. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner owns and controls the business in Nigeria. The Petitioner, on the contrary has contended that he does not own or control the business and that he has only 30% stake in the business and remaining 70% being controlled by Nigerian partners. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner had a lavish life style and is extremely wealthy and therefore, the Family Court ought to have granted maintenance namely in the sum of Rs. 70,000/- per month each to the Respondent and their daughter Ayesha. 3. In Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2008, the Petitioner - husband has challenged the order of maintenance on the ground that the Respondent-wife is wealthy. She was Director in three companies in Singapore and drawing a sum of Rs. 1 lac per month by way of Director's fees and also receiving separately, accommodation compensation. The Respondent wife was engaged in the family business of her father which is evident from the records produced. According to the Petitioner, the documentary evidence produced revealed that the Respondent has substantial finances of her own and has suppressed her banks accounts and income. 1 lac per month by way of Director's fees and also receiving separately, accommodation compensation. The Respondent wife was engaged in the family business of her father which is evident from the records produced. According to the Petitioner, the documentary evidence produced revealed that the Respondent has substantial finances of her own and has suppressed her banks accounts and income. It is an admitted position that there is a trust known as "Vanita Trust" and the Respondent was the beneficiary of the said trust. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent has deliberately suppressed her income and her financial status, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. The Petitioner also accused the Respondent of having withdrawn a sum of USD 53,692.51 from a joint account in OCBC Bank, Singapore in the year 1998, by prematurely closing a fixed deposit held in their joint names and transferring the fund to a company M/s. Saniva International (PTE) Ltd. Singapore. It is in this background that the present litigation has been contested. PLEADINGS AND CONTENTIONS: 4. The Family Court Petition No. A-264 of 2002 was filed by the Petitioner - husband in January 2002 i.e. little over nine years after marriage took place on 19th May, 1993. The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that after the marriage, the parties stayed together at Lagos, Nigeria. The daughter named Ayesha was born on 13th April, 1994. It is the case of the Petitioner that the marriage was solemnised only after the Respondent agreed to settle in Lagos where he was working for the gain. It is the Petitioner's case that soon after birth of their daughter the Respondent's behavior changed. She became arrogant, abusive, defiant and was beyond control of the Respondent. It is alleged that the Petitioner would use foul language and was abusive towards the Respondent and his family members. The Respondent came back to India along with their daughter Ayesha sometime in February 1994. In August 1997, on an occasion of birth of child, a son to his only sister Jyoti, the Respondent allegedly accused the Petitioner of being father of the said child. This is cited as an example of the Respondent's cruel behavior. The Respondent's parents are said to have regretted and apologized on her behalf. The other instances of alleged cruelty were introduced by the Petitioner by way of amendment. This is cited as an example of the Respondent's cruel behavior. The Respondent's parents are said to have regretted and apologized on her behalf. The other instances of alleged cruelty were introduced by the Petitioner by way of amendment. The instances of cruelty in the Petition are inter alia and can be quickly summarised as follows: 5. The Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent has thrown things at the Respondent, destroyed glass articles and vented her anger on the young child. In July 1998, the Respondent along with their daughter went from Lagos to Singapore to meet her parents. Thereafter since the Petitioner was to be in London on business trip, he requested the Respondent to join him in London along with their daughter but the Respondent declined contending that the daughter was not granted a visa. The Petitioner then waited return of the Respondent to Lagos since their daughter's school was expected to reopen. However, the Respondent did not paid any attention to this and it was obvious that she was acting against the interest of the child. After the Petitioner firmly demanded they return to Lagos, the Respondent's father spoke to the Petitioner's parents in Mumbai and informed that the Respondent was not interested in returning to Lagos and that she would prefer to be in Mumbai. The Respondent's father suggested that her father would look after the Respondent and the Petitioner should look after his daughter Ayesha. As a result, the Petitioner came to Mumbai and took Ayesha away to Lagos. The Respondent continued to stay with her father. 6. The daughter Ayesha contracted chicken pox at Nigeria. The Petitioner had been informed of this fact and the Petitioner was hopeful that she would come again to Lagos to look after the child, however, she did not come. The Respondent then came to India with the daughter Ayesha since she was suffering from chicken pox and the Petitioner was finding it difficult to manage alone especially due to her tender age. The Petitioner sent the daughter to meet the Respondent in the expectation that she would like to see her and go back to Lagos, however, the Respondent did not go Lagos. The Petitioner left alone on 14th January, 1999 to Lagos. The Petitioner sent the daughter to meet the Respondent in the expectation that she would like to see her and go back to Lagos, however, the Respondent did not go Lagos. The Petitioner left alone on 14th January, 1999 to Lagos. The Respondent did not allow the child to accompany him to Lagos and threatened the Petitioner that her father would have beaten him up, if he tried to forcibly take the daughter Ayesha to Lagos. Apparently, the Petitioner's daughter would visit his parents and express her desire to meet him. The Respondent then suggested that she was also ready to come back to Lagos along with Ayesha. The Petitioner agreed, provided she agreed to repay the money clandestinely withdrawn. The Respondent promised to repay the sum of USD 53,692.51 withdrawn from the OCBC Bank and then joined the Petitioner in Lagos only to return in the first week of February, 1999. Though she stayed with the Petitioner, she did not repay the money. 7. In February, 2000 on a visit to Mumbai, the Respondent continued to fight with the Petitioner and was rude to his parents. The Petitioner states that he later returned to Lagos alone and the Respondent and his daughter Ayesha stayed in Mumbai with his parents. The Respondent got their daughter admitted in the Cathedral and John Connon School at Mumbai in March, 2000. The Petitioner states that the Respondent along with their daughter Ayesha came to Lagos again in April, 2000 but she continued to fight with the Petitioner, making allegations against him and his parents and calling them uncultured. The Respondent further accused the Petitioner of leaving her in India and enjoying his freedom in Lagos. The Respondent returned to India along with Ayesha some where in the 2nd week of June, 2000. The Petitioner decided to settle down along with his daughter Ayesha in Mumbai and returned from Lagos on 15th September, 2001, yet the Respondent did not cooperate and the fights continued. The Petitioner further contends that the Respondent was not interested in associating himself with the Respondent's family business and he refused to the accede to the pressure from the Respondent to invest her monies in her father's business leading to further rude behaviour by the Respondent. The Petitioner further contends that the Respondent was not interested in associating himself with the Respondent's family business and he refused to the accede to the pressure from the Respondent to invest her monies in her father's business leading to further rude behaviour by the Respondent. On one occasion on 29th October, 2001, the Respondent fought with and abused the Petitioner's mother and father and picked up an antique crystal glass vase and flung it on the ground. The parents of the Respondent continued to support the Respondent and the Petitioner's parents suffered constant threats of criminal prosecution. On 2nd November, 2001 the Petitioner attempted to assault the Respondent which was resisted. The Respondent then called her parents who immediately came. The Respondent falsely complained that she was beaten. The Respondent abused the mother and father of the Petitioner. The Respondent not only beat the daughter but also hit the Petitioner in presence of her parents. Thus, physical assault by the Petitioner has been pleaded. The Respondent also manhandled the Petitioners' parents which caused great mental agony and disturbance amounting to humiliation. The Respondent told the Petitioner that they do not want the daughter Ayesha and told him that she was his responsibility. They proceeded to threaten the Petitioner with criminal prosecution. Even the Petitioner's sister was not spared from the abusive conduct. When at a school function the daughter was attending along with the Respondent, they came across the Petitioner's sister, whose children were also attending the same school. The Respondent apparently spoke to her in a cheap manner and in unparliamentary language. The Petitioner alleged that although the Respondent pretended that she comes from a cultured family, she had no morals or ethics. Unfortunately, the fact that her parents were supporting the behaviour of the Respondent was causing great harm to their daughter Ayesha. 8. On or about 5th June, 2002 the Respondent with an intention to pressurizing and harassing the Petitioner and his aged parents forcibly entered the residence of his parents, abused and manhandled Petitioner's mother by pushing her and abusing her in bad language. Apparently, the Petitioner's mother requested the Respondent and father of the Respondent to come when Petitioner's father was present but the Respondent refused and pushed the Petitioner's mother (who was 69 years of age) into one bed room and took forcible possession of another bedroom. Apparently, the Petitioner's mother requested the Respondent and father of the Respondent to come when Petitioner's father was present but the Respondent refused and pushed the Petitioner's mother (who was 69 years of age) into one bed room and took forcible possession of another bedroom. Thereafter, the Respondent lodged a complaint at Cuffe Parade police station alleging that the Petitioner's parents especially his mother was harassing the Respondent and demanding dowry. This resulted in Petitioner's parents being taken to the police station on or about 16th July, 2002 reportedly at the behest of the Respondent. The police made the aged parents of the Petitioner to sit at the police station till 11 pm. The Petitioner then rushed to Mumbai and through his advocate put on record all that had transpired from 16th July 2002. He also received a letter from Cuffe Parade police station asking him to remain present, whereupon he did attend and gave his statement. It seems that at the police station the Respondent and her parents were also present and they abused the Petitioner. It is alleged that Respondent's mother in presence of all stated that the Petitioner was impotent and should be sheltered under "the frill of his mother". The Petitioner contends that on this ground alone the Petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce. 9. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent was in habit of making false and frivolous allegations. Correspondence ensued between the parties and the Petitioner in various letter addressed to the Respondent put on record the false accusations made by her which were not in the interest of happy matrimonial life. The Respondent/her family never denied any of these contentions. In the meanwhile it is alleged that Cuffe Parade police were pressurizing the Petitioner and his parents to "settle" with the Respondent. 10. On several occasions the Petitioner was called to the police station and was humiliated. The aged mother of the Petitioner was forced to sit at police station and was being pressurised in order to agree to unreasonable demands that were being made by the Respondent. The acts of cruelty included constant threats by the Respondent to have the Petitioner arrested by the police which has caused stress to the Petitioner with the result it was not possible for the Petitioner to continue with the marriage. The acts of cruelty included constant threats by the Respondent to have the Petitioner arrested by the police which has caused stress to the Petitioner with the result it was not possible for the Petitioner to continue with the marriage. The Petitioner therefore contends that false accusations had adversely affected the Petitioner's mind and health and has caused great embarrassment to him and his parents and lowered their image amongst relatives and business associates leading them to be looked down by their neighbours and business associates. 11. In the meantime the Petitioner learnt that Respondent had clandestinely withdrawn a sum of USD 53692.51 from a fixed deposit in the bank in Singapore which was held in joint names. This amount was clandestinely transferred by her in name of M/s. Saniva International Pvt. Ltd. in Singapore. As a result of which, he was then forced to stop further transactions in the account in OCBC Bank, Singapore. The Respondent reportedly took away all jewellery from the locker which was in the joint name of the parties in Central Bank of India. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent later promised to repay the money which she had taken away and expressed here willingness to join him at Lagos. 12. The Petitioner's family members including his brother and his sister Jyoti (who reportedly had been a friend of the Respondent) tried to advise her to improve her behavior but to no avail. The constant irrational and unpredictable behaviour and foul language used by the Respondent had caused great humiliation in front of outsiders and it had become impossible to live with the Respondent. He contends that he is entitled to a decree of judicial separation and has subsequently amended the petition and seeks a decree under section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. WRITTEN STATEMENT 13. In the written statement, the Respondent has admitted the marriage, the consummation of marriage and birth of their daughter Ayesha and the fact that the Respondent was required to live in Lagos since the business of the Petitioner was at Lagos. She contends that her permanent address was however shown as that of the Petitioners' in Mumbai. It had been contended by the Respondent that after the birth of daughter Ayesha the attitude of the Petitioner towards her had changed. This contention of the Respondent is similar to that of the Petitioner. She contends that her permanent address was however shown as that of the Petitioners' in Mumbai. It had been contended by the Respondent that after the birth of daughter Ayesha the attitude of the Petitioner towards her had changed. This contention of the Respondent is similar to that of the Petitioner. She contends that the Petitioner became puppet in the hands of his mother. The Petitioner's attitude towards the Respondent changed and the Petitioner's mother poisoned the Petitioner against the Respondent resulting in ill treatment and physical assault by the Petitioner. The allegations of ill treatment are made against the Petitioner's mother as well. The Respondent alleges that after the birth of the child, the Petitioner started demanding that the Respondent's father should help secure another home for them in South Mumbai. That after expenses incurred for the marriage, it was not possible for the Respondent's father to accede to the demand of the Petitioner. She contends that despite all the ill treatment, she continued to maintain family relations. She decided to enroll the child in a school in Mumbai as against going back to Lagos. The Respondent admits that the Petitioner wound up his business and came to India with intention of permanently residing in India and he resided with his parents. 14. The Respondent states that after the Petitioner returned to India, he started drinking more (presumably alcohol) and thereafter the Petitioner started assaulting and abusing the Respondent's parents for not providing a separate flat. It is alleged that the Petitioner and his mother made plans to throw the Respondent and daughter out of the matrimonial home. The Respondent alleges that the Petitioner and his parents claimed they have suffered heavily as a result of marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent alluding to expectations that their daughter-in-law will provide dowry and a house for the Petitioner to live in and look after the Petitioner and his parents in old age. Similar allegations are made in relation to business, to the effect that had the Petitioner married some other girl, then the girl's parents would have helped the Petitioner establish business in India. The Respondent alleges that on a number of occasions the Petitioner's mother asked her to leave the matrimonial home and go to her parents' home. Similar allegations are made in relation to business, to the effect that had the Petitioner married some other girl, then the girl's parents would have helped the Petitioner establish business in India. The Respondent alleges that on a number of occasions the Petitioner's mother asked her to leave the matrimonial home and go to her parents' home. On account of such ill treatment, the Respondent alleges that she had to leave matrimonial home at midnight on 2nd November, 2001. The Respondent alleges that the Petitioner and his family members continued to use abusive language and the Respondent was "thrown out" of the matrimonial home without taking her Stridhan and jewellery as a result of which on 3rd November, 2001 the Respondent lodged the complaint with the Cuffe Parade police station. Despite this, the Respondent tried to save the marriage. Apparently, in January 2002, the Petitioner requested the Respondent to come back to matrimonial home, however, her mother-in-law continued poisoning the mind of the Petitioner. The Petitioner's mother apparently, found out that the Petitioner and the Respondent were contemplating living separately and hence the Petitioner was emotionally blackmailed by his mother to prevent the Petitioner from moving out of the matrimonial home. The Respondent alleges that the attitude of the mother-in-law did not change and she continued to abuse the Respondent and her parents blaming them for marital disharmony. 15. The Respondent once again went to the matrimonial home keeping in mind the interest of her daughter. According to the Respondent like on several earlier occasions the Petitioner and in-laws made the Respondent starve. She was neither allowed to cook for the minor daughter nor order food from outside, as a result of which. according to the Respondent, she was forced out of the matrimonial home on 14th June, 2002. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner and his mother filed a collusive suit wherein an injunction was sought to restrain the Respondent from entering the matrimonial house. According to the Respondent the police did not take cognizance of her complaint, as a result she filed the complaints under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and his parents in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Mumbai. Process came to be issued in the said matter. According to the Respondent she was not qualified, she has no house property and no independent source of income. Process came to be issued in the said matter. According to the Respondent she was not qualified, she has no house property and no independent source of income. Hence, the Petitioner is bound to maintain the Respondent, provide accommodation in the Mumbai and pay maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- for herself and Rs. 25,000/- for daughter Ayesha. 16. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner is extremely wealthy and has purchased two costly cars for his use when he came back to reside in Mumbai. She has no place for her to stay and she is prevented from entering the matrimonial home by virtue of suit filed in the City Civil Court and at present she stays with her parents at their mercy. Thus, the Respondent contends that the Petitioner and his parents have been found at fault as the Respondent was thrown out of matrimonial home and the Petitioner has deserted the Respondent. She opposed the grant of decree of divorce. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner is earning more than Rs. 2 crores per annum. 17. The written statement then contains general para-wise denials of the contents of the petition. She admits that she along with the daughter came to India as set out in paragraph 8 of the petition. All other allegations have been denied. THE EVIDENCE 18. The Petitioner led evidence by filing his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief dated 20th August, 2005. The Petitioner's mother Mrs. Asha Kripalani has also filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief in support of the Petitioner's case. The third witness, namely, Ms. Bina Sippy, the cousin sister of the Petitioner's mother has also filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. In his affidavit of evidence, the Petitioner has listed instances of cruelty towards him personally as well as his parents and sister all of which also amount to cruelty towards the Petitioner entitling him to divorce under the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The instances of cruelty narrated in the petition have all been deposed to and same need not be repeated here. 19. In addition, to this the Petitioner has also deposed to the fact that his sister also has been abused by the Respondent and all the acts of cruelty has caused unbearable mental and physical stress to the Petitioner affecting his health and his business. 19. In addition, to this the Petitioner has also deposed to the fact that his sister also has been abused by the Respondent and all the acts of cruelty has caused unbearable mental and physical stress to the Petitioner affecting his health and his business. His parents health is deteriorating which has been aggravated by the Respondent's behavior. The Petitioner has deposed that tremendous harm has been caused to reputation of the family amounting to cruelty. He has also deposed to the fact that false cases were filed under section 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code before the 47th Magistrate Court admittedly after the police refused to register the case against the Petitioner and his parents. The Petitioner and his parents were forced to seek anticipatory bail fearing arrest, as a result of the complaint being filed. All of this clearly establishes the cruelty meted out to the Petitioner. He has also deposed that as a result of such cruel behavior the Petitioner's mother had to file a suit restraining the Petitioner and the Respondent from entering into matrimonial home at the material time. The Petitioner has also acknowledged the fact that he has been paying for daughter's expenses at School. 20. The Petitioner was cross examined between 12th April, 2006 and 26th March, 2007. The Petitioner has admitted that he joined his brother's business as a Manager when he was in Nigeria and thereafter he along-with a Nigerian Partner started another company Anivin Nigeria Ltd. The company was Importing Indian Bicycles spare parts, bicycles tyres, toothpaste, wall clocks and other consumer protects from India. The firm for which the Petitioner was working was dissolved in 1993 and then he became Managing Director of Anivin Nigeria Ltd. At the material time he was earning about 1,40,000/- Naira (2.75 Naira = 1 Rupee] per month as the Managing Director and he was holding 30% shares in the company. 21. In Indian rupees, his salary was Rs. 30,000/- In addition, the company provided car, residence and the driver. The Petitioner pleaded ignorance of the details of the company and he did not provide the copies of the balance sheet and profit and loss account. He submitted that he has not asked for the same. He further deposed that he has not filed Income Tax returns in India. He claimed that he had not attended board meetings since 2002. The Petitioner pleaded ignorance of the details of the company and he did not provide the copies of the balance sheet and profit and loss account. He submitted that he has not asked for the same. He further deposed that he has not filed Income Tax returns in India. He claimed that he had not attended board meetings since 2002. In further cross examination he states that although in 1999 the company made profit, it was wiped away due to loss in the year 1998 yet he was unaware of the extent of loss incurred in the year 1998. Despite this position he admitted that he along with other Directors were drawing salaries. He deposed that there was no resolution passed during 1998 to 2005 in respect of wiping out of the losses. He was unable to state the stock of goods held by the company in the year 1998. He deposed that he does not have any other business and although he has deposed in the affidavit in the suit filed in Bombay City Civil Court that he is resident of Lagos and having own business, except for sometime being the Manager and share holder and the Managing Director of Anivin Nigeria Ltd., he did not have any other business. 22. He admitted to having received US $ 1,00,000/- as his share upon leaving his brother's business in 1993 equivalent to Rs. 18 lakhs at the relevant time. He admitted that after separation from his brother he rented a 3 BHK premises but could not recall rent paid. He admitted to have spent about US $25000 for its renovation. He admitted to have made various renovation at the costs of the company and contended that the company had taken loan for the expenses incurred. He procured furniture at the costs of the company although he had sufficient funds of his own in the year 1993. He admitted that in the year 1993 he had two maids and one cook in the house. Their salary was paid for by the company. He also admitted to having the services of the driver who was employed by the company. He could not produce any document showing perks received by him from 1993 till 1998. 23. It is admitted that the company had given three cars to the Petitioner. Their salary was paid for by the company. He also admitted to having the services of the driver who was employed by the company. He could not produce any document showing perks received by him from 1993 till 1998. 23. It is admitted that the company had given three cars to the Petitioner. According to him, there was no agreement in writing to provide cars but the cars were provided by way of an oral agreement. Similarly, by virtue of an oral agreement with the company he is stated to have travelled to England for purchasing furniture. No fixed amount is allotted by the company for purchase of the furniture. All the receipts were made in the name of the company. The company spent about 50 lakhs which included furniture, fixture rent of apartment, agent's fees, tenancy agreement charges. Electricity bills of Rs. 10,000/- were also paid by the company. 24. In addition apart from him, there were other persons working in the company but he was unable to state their salaries. The witness admitted that apart from his bare statement there was no document whatsoever to show that the company spent amount concerned on the apartment etc. He claims that he had not asked for the record of the company although he was Managing Director. He admitted that he is not assessed to tax in India and he does not hold a PAN. 25. In further cross examination, the witness contended that an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs belonging to him was withdrawn by the Respondent from OCBC Bank prematurely and without his consent. He admitted that sum of USD 2,44,834 was deposited by him in his account. According to him these were funds required for business and the amounts paid during 1993 to 1998 were first transferred onward to the Chemical Bank, New York to be transferred to Oman Bank, Mumbai. The witness has admitted to having accounts with Bank of Baroda and UTI. He reiterated that the funds in the account at OCBC Bank, Singapore were not the funds belonging to the Respondent. 26. Apropos the bank locker, he deposed that the locker was held jointly by the Respondent with him and he was not aware of the operation of the locker. He was aware that the locker was containing jewellery of the Petitioner and Respondent but he did not have list of jewellery. 26. Apropos the bank locker, he deposed that the locker was held jointly by the Respondent with him and he was not aware of the operation of the locker. He was aware that the locker was containing jewellery of the Petitioner and Respondent but he did not have list of jewellery. The Petitioner had not operated the account for long time. The witness admitted that parents have purchased the flat in Sanjeev Enclave and he had made certain payments towards maintenance of the said flat. He was unaware of its location as such and later revealed that the flat was purchased in the joint names of his uncle and himself. He had no documentary evidence of the flat having been purchased by the Uncle and himself but stated that the flat was disposed of in June 1998 to a person whose identity he was not aware of and he does not know the sale price of the flat. The witness was unaware of the capital gain made on this transaction. 27. There were a large amounts that had been deposited in his Bank accounts and the Petitioner has attributed these to the business transactions of the company, particulars of which according to him, could not be disclosed due to confidentiality attached to the business transactions. In several instances he has received proceeds of various investments including from UTI. However, he has stated that these amounts did not belong to him. He has made several remittances to his mother including a sum of 11,50,000/- on 4.7.2003. There is extensive cross examination on the funds passing through his accounts. The witness having admitted to have withdrawn substantial amount in cash and having remitted 4,70,042/-. He claims to have encashed the fixed deposit in order to make remittances. He has also made remittances to his sister Jyoti Mahajan. He admitted that he has not disclosed the amount in fixed deposit in his affidavits. Several fixed deposits have been admittedly closed and funds flowing therefrom have been invested. The evidence recorded on various dates from 14th July, 2006, all deal with financial transactions passing through the said account. He has received diverse sums of money detailed below:-- Amounts received by Appellant in his Bank Account 28. Thus, large amounts seems to have been received by the Petitioner. The evidence recorded on various dates from 14th July, 2006, all deal with financial transactions passing through the said account. He has received diverse sums of money detailed below:-- Amounts received by Appellant in his Bank Account 28. Thus, large amounts seems to have been received by the Petitioner. In continuing the cross examination, the witness was confronted with further evidence in the form of bank statements of Oman International Bank Rs. 7,49,69,003.35 was credited to his bank account out of which a sum of Rs. 6,63,55,965.41 was withdrawn. According to him funds connected with certain business transactions have intermingled with personal funds. 29. The witness stated that he returned to India on or about 15.9.2001 after winding up his work in Lagos since he considered the company as his company being the Managing Director. He then deposed that he did not resign as the Managing Director and company continued to do business and he continued to hold his shares in the company. He was confronted with the suggestion that he received salary and emoluments from the company and that he had made false statement to the effect that he is has wound up his business in September 2000. His responses are intriguing and vague. He is not aware from which bank the payments were made. He did not own the company Anivin Enterprises in Nigeria. He was not controlling the finances of the company. The witness did not provide information of the emoluments received by the company by way of Director's fees. However, he has received emoluments from the company. In the large number of bill of exchange executed in lieu of the goods that were imported from India into Nigeria. Alluding to the strong financial position of the Respondent wife, he contended that the Respondent wife was a Director in Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner reiterated that several companies such as Modfash Exports Pvt. Ltd., Lekhraj and Sons Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vanita Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and Palmar Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. were belonging to the Respondent's father and the Respondent. 30. The evidence then deals with relationship between himself, his mother, sister and brother and alludes to the fact that there were differences of opinion amongst them. 30. The evidence then deals with relationship between himself, his mother, sister and brother and alludes to the fact that there were differences of opinion amongst them. The Petitioner has admitted that after the marriage they proceeded for honeymoon to the Unites States for two weeks and on their return to Mumbai, they stayed with the Petitioner's parents. Thereafter, they proceeded to Lagos. The suggestion to the effect that while at Lagos there were disputes between the Petitioner and his brother as a result of which they left the brother's house has been denied. The Petitioner volunteered to state that his brother also stays in Hong Kong. He denied a suggestion that he moved to another place because of a dispute with his brother. He admitted that the Respondent and he visited London to buy furniture for their house at Lagos. He denied suggestion that he demanded dowry upon his return to Mumbai in 1993. The witness admitted that he received gifts at the time of the marriage from the Respondent's side which he discarded since he did not wish to keep the gifts and the Respondent's family refused to take it back. He denied allegations that the Respondent's mother has to be hospitalised because of humiliation by him. 31. He further denied that in February 1994, the Respondent was sent for her delivery by herself. On the contrary, he says that he accompanied her to Mumbai. He has denied the allegations of having taunted the Respondent and her mother. He denied suggestion that he made taunting remarks and told the Respondent that he does not wish to be father of the child on 9th April, 1994. He denied suggestion that he did not return to hospital at the time of birth and that he fought with Respondent's parents and did not allow to meet the new born. He denied a suggestion that the Respondent's parents were not allowed to touch the child during the naming ceremony. He has admitted that in June 1994 they returned to Lagos and remained there till July 1995 but denied that during that period there were no problems between him and the Respondent or that the relations between him and the Respondent's parents were also cordial. He denied a suggestion that his mother blamed the Respondent's parents for the fall he suffered in the Respondent's house. He denied a suggestion that his mother blamed the Respondent's parents for the fall he suffered in the Respondent's house. Various other instances of misbehavior attributed to him during visit of the Respondent to Lagos have been denied. The suggestion that he has been torturing the Respondent despite which she continued to stay with him for the sake of marriage and child has been denied. He has denied suggestion that he has unnecessarily created controversy about the Respondent and daughter not visiting London while he was present there and wrongly blaming the Respondent for not having obtained a visa. 32. The Petitioner further deposed that when he came to India to collect his daughter Ayesha the Respondent was not staying with his parents at matrimonial home. He denied a suggestion that the Respondent had inquired of him as to when she should return to matrimonial home. He denied a further suggestion that since he took his daughter Ayesha to Lagos, the Respondent developed a mental disorder and a hypo-thyroid condition. He denied that the Respondent had withdrawn the sum of USD 53,692.51 for the purpose of her medical treatment. He denied the suggestion that he has not asked for medical bills from the Respondent. He further deposed that he has asked the Respondent to come to Lagos. He denied suggestion that he had informed the Respondent that after she and their daughter should accompany him to Lagos when he was leaving in January 1999. He denied suggestion that he has cheated the Respondent. He admitted that the meeting had been held between the Respondent's parents for return of the Respondent and child to Lagos. He denied that he had given assurance that any harm would be caused to the Respondent and child and that the Respondent flew to Lagos in February 1999. The fact remains that the Respondent and the child went to Lagos in February 1999 and stayed with the Petitioner till February 2000. 33. Apropos his arrival in Mumbai in September 1999 he had not informed the Respondent about his arrival when he came to take the child to Lagos. He admitted that he has not paid any medical treatment for the Respondent. He admits that although he asked the Respondent to return to Lagos he insisted that she should bring along the money and his jewellery which she had taken away. He admitted that he has not paid any medical treatment for the Respondent. He admits that although he asked the Respondent to return to Lagos he insisted that she should bring along the money and his jewellery which she had taken away. However, the Respondent with her daughter joined the Petitioner but she did not return jewellery and money. 34. He denied a suggestion that life during February 1999 and February 2000 was peaceful when they were away from the Petitioner's parents. It is further denied that the Petitioner did not demand return of money. The witness has denied a suggestion that when the Respondent's parents were visiting Holland and London the Petitioner had agreed to join the Respondent. However, the Respondent's father telephonically invited. He admitted that the Respondent and their daughter joined her parents on the holiday and that the Petitioner came together when they were in London. He denied a suggestion that when the Respondent and daughter returned to Lagos he quarreled with them and assaulted the Respondent. He denied that he refused to talk to the Respondent's father when he telephoned him to discuss the alleged incident. He denied that the Petitioner was willing to send the daughter and Respondent to Singapore since they would bring cash, jewellery and gifts on their return for the Petitioner and his mother. The Petitioner's evidence also reveals that he invited the Respondent's parents to Lagos during their visit in June 2000. The allegations that the Petitioner's mother had tortured the Respondent has been denied. The suggestion that in April 2001 when the Respondent was living in the matrimonial home, the Petitioners' parents abused, harassed her and the Petitioner beat her up in the presence of the child has been denied. Further suggestion that on 2.11.2001 the Petitioner was beating the Respondent is denied. It is denied that the Respondent's father stopped him from beating and when the Respondent's father tried to stop him from beating, the Petitioner pushed him away and continued to beat the Respondent. It is also denied that the Petitioner's parents were throwing glass plates at the Respondent's parents. 35. Further cross examination of the Petitioner which continued on 22.11.2006 reveals that friction between the parties continued from time to time intermittently. The suggestion that the daughter had picked up bad habits during her stay with grandparents has been denied. It is also denied that the Petitioner's parents were throwing glass plates at the Respondent's parents. 35. Further cross examination of the Petitioner which continued on 22.11.2006 reveals that friction between the parties continued from time to time intermittently. The suggestion that the daughter had picked up bad habits during her stay with grandparents has been denied. Various other suggestions alluding to improper attitude developed by child have been denied. It is denied that while the Respondent and the daughter were staying in the matrimonial, the Petitioner's parents subjected to severe restrictions such as removal of telephone from the room asking the Respondent and child to arrange for food and the Petitioner threw away food prepared by the Respondent and daughter. The Petitioner has denied that the Respondent's jewellery and belongings were lying at matrimonial home and that the Petitioner's mother prevented the Respondent and daughter from entering into flat on 5th June 2002 on the eve of reopening of school on 6th June 2002. He denied that his parents were harassing the Respondent and that he had informed the Respondent not to shift from the matrimonial home. The Petitioner has denied that he made various derogatory statements about the Respondent and her parents. He has also denied a suggestion that he has made false statements in the affidavit of evidence and in particular the statements in paragraphs 6 to 14. 36. In the cross examination on 1st December, 2006 the Petitioner produced several bank statements which he was called upon to produce. He has deposed to various amounts disclosed in bank account with Oman Bank and Bank of Baroda as well as Public Provident Fund certain amount have been transferred from the brother's account in London to Petitioner's account. The amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was put in fixed deposit. Several such entries have been deposed to some of which are already discussed elsewhere in the evidence. During the conclusion of cross examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that the suit in City Civil Court was filed in collusion with the parents. He deposed that after suffering an injunction in a suit in the City Civil Court, he did not stay with his parents but stayed with his cousin at Sangam Bhavan, although his car had been parked in the building where his parents stayed. He denied that he earns Rs. He deposed that after suffering an injunction in a suit in the City Civil Court, he did not stay with his parents but stayed with his cousin at Sangam Bhavan, although his car had been parked in the building where his parents stayed. He denied that he earns Rs. 25 lakhs from business or that he has suppressed his income. He has denied the suggestion that he has other bank account in India and Lagos. He admitted that he has visited and telephoned the daughter but had not seen after she started living with the Respondent but had not met for last 6 to 8 months. He has not made efforts to inquire about the child. He had not written any letter to the child. He has not made any application for seeking access to the child. He denied a suggestion that he and his parents had thrown the Respondent and child out of the matrimonial home. He has denied that personal belongings i.e. jewellery articles of the Respondent are lying with him at the matrimonial home or at Lagos. He has denied that his parents and he treated the Respondent with physical and mental cruelty and that he has filed this petition falsely. The cross examination was closed on 5th December, 2006. There was no re-examination. 37. In support of the Petitioner's case, his elder sister Jyoti Mahajan residing in the same vicinity as that of the matrimonial home has also deposed by filing an affidavit in lieu of evidence in October 2006. She knew the Respondent prior to the Petitioner getting married and went to parties and movies before the marriage. She has played part in fixing the marriage since she knew the Respondent. To her knowledge, the witness states that the Respondent was carrying on business and was engaged in fashion designing. She has further deposed that at the time of alliance with the Petitioner, the Respondent and her parents were informed that the Respondent would be permanently residing in Lagos and that the marriage should be fixed only if she was willing to shift to Lagos, since the Respondent and her parents agreed to this, the marriage was finalised. She has also deposed that she became aware of differences the Petitioner and Respondent after a couple of years. The disputes always revolved around money. She has also deposed that she became aware of differences the Petitioner and Respondent after a couple of years. The disputes always revolved around money. She has deposed that the Respondent left matrimonial home on 2.11.2001 and started residing at Blue Haven since her parents were then residing at Singapore. She further deposed that when the Petitioner and daughter Ayesha were staying at her mother's house, the children of witness would come home to play with Ayesha. She also used to visit Ayesha and take Ayesha to school since they all were in same school. She deposed that the Petitioner at a school function the Respondent made certain obscene remarks in relation to the witness having two children because she had sex twice whereas, the Petitioner and Respondent have one child since they had sex once. She further deposed that on 4.6.2002 when the Respondent entered the matrimonial home forcibly, her mother called her up and requested her to stay with them since her parents were frightened about behavior of the Respondent and her parents. 38. In the cross examination, she stated that she had gone to Lagos on the advise of the Petitioner's advocate and affidavit filed by her is as per instructions and that the Petitioner did not accompany her to the Advocate's office to give her instructions. She admitted that her husband was seven years younger than her and that she travelled to Lagos with her husband to stay with the Petitioner. She admitted that in 1991-92 her husband was engaged by the Chairman of Anivin Nigeria Ltd. to inspect their goods in India and she did not know whether her husband was receiving salary or commission. The witness further deposed that she was friends with the Respondent from 1991 to 1993 after being introduced through a common friend. They had been out to movies and parties but not to each others houses. She was unaware of background of the Respondent's family although they belong to the same caste. She had referred the Respondent to her brother since she was unmarried girl in the group. She then had role played in the marriage. She admits that in September 2001, the Petitioner came to India along-with the Respondent and the daughter and she had heard that there were differences between the Petitioner and the Respondent but had not tried to help solve the differences. She then had role played in the marriage. She admits that in September 2001, the Petitioner came to India along-with the Respondent and the daughter and she had heard that there were differences between the Petitioner and the Respondent but had not tried to help solve the differences. To her knowledge, the differences were only about money matters. She admitted to payments made by the Petitioner to her and repayments by her. She did not have recollection of other transactions between her husband and the Petitioner. 39. Rest of the cross examination deals with suggestion put to the witness resulting to the business relation between two brothers. She was not aware of the various financial transactions between her husband and Anivin Nigeria Ltd. She denied that the monies received by the Petitioner were diverted through her. In an interesting admission, she stated that the Petitioner may have made false statement that he had made payment since she cannot recollect or check each and every payment. She denied the suggestion that Rs. 65,000/- was paid to her by the Petitioner in March 2004. She denied that such payments represented diversion of the Petitioner's income. However, she admitted to have given temporary advances to the Petitioner. She denied the suggestion that the Petitioner was routing any amounts through her and her husband in India. She admitted that she was assessed to income tax, however she did not disclose the income tax returns. 40. In view of this the learned Judge of the Family Court has noted that since the witness declined to reveal information sought by the Advocate for the Respondent, necessary adverse inference may be drawn. The cross examination on this and other aspects of the financial transactions between the Petitioner and the Respondent continued on 22nd March, 2007 and 26th March, 2007. However, the evidence does not reveal anything which have a bearing on the issues before the Family Court. 41. The third witness who deposed in support of the Petitioner's case was Asha Kripalani who filed an affidavit of evidence in March 2007. In her evidence she deposed that she is owner of 26, Iris, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai which served as the matrimonial home where she lived with her husband. She confirmed that the Petitioner had lived in Nigeria prior to marriage and continued to live there. In her evidence she deposed that she is owner of 26, Iris, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai which served as the matrimonial home where she lived with her husband. She confirmed that the Petitioner had lived in Nigeria prior to marriage and continued to live there. She has informed the Respondent and their parents before the marriage that after the marriage the Petitioner and the Respondent would live in Nigeria where her son, the Petitioner, carried on business. She admitted to the fact that the Petitioner and the Respondent occasionally visited in Mumbai and lived for few days and thereafter the Respondent would go to her parents house at Singapore or at Blue Haven Apartment in Mumbai which belong to the Respondent's parents. She deposed that in February 1999 the Respondent visited India with daughter and lived with her till the child was three months old. Thereafter the Respondent went back to Nigeria. She deposed that after delivery of the child, the Respondent's behavior drastically changed towards the Petitioner's family members. The Respondent became vicious and hostile towards her ailing husband and her parents. The Respondent was instigated against them by the Respondent's family. She deposed to the fact that she and her husband would be insulted and abused by the Respondent often. She further deposed to the fact that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent deteriorated because of the Respondent's quarrelsome and nature. She admitted that the Petitioner and the Respondent tried to save the marriage in 2000 when she came down to Mumbai to stay and since the Petitioner did not have its own residence, the witness allowed the couple to stay with her. During their stay, she deposed to the fact that the Petitioner conveyed to her about the Respondent's behavior at Nigeria was unpardonable and she would constantly quarrel with him over money. The Respondent would be abusive and behaved badly with the Petitioner and due to this the child Ayesha was also under tremendous pressure. 42. In 1998, when the Petitioner and the Respondent were having problems in Lagos, the Respondent went to Singapore. Thereafter the Respondent's father informed the witness that the Respondent does not wish to continue to stay with the Petitioner. 42. In 1998, when the Petitioner and the Respondent were having problems in Lagos, the Respondent went to Singapore. Thereafter the Respondent's father informed the witness that the Respondent does not wish to continue to stay with the Petitioner. Copies of a letter was handed over by the Respondent's father to the witness and stated that he would look after the Respondent and the Respondent's father asked the witness to look after the child. She produced the letters signed by her. The witness deposed to instances for altercation between the Respondent and the Petitioner and the instances involving the Respondent's parents, the Petitioner and themselves. She deposed as to how she was assaulted by the father of the Respondent in their home, she was pushed by the Respondent's mother which resulted in injury to her head. The Petitioner received injury on the face and eye. After the said quarrel the Respondent left the residence by packing all her belongings including jewellery and watch of the Petitioner in a suitcase leaving behind daughter Ayesha. The witness has produced the photographs of injuries suffered by the Petitioner. 43. Thereafter the Respondent continued to live with her parents at NCPA Apartments, Nariman Point, Mumbai. She has further deposed to the fact that on 5th June, 2002 the Respondent and her father forcibly entered the matrimonial house and her father started abusing the witness. The witness was manhandled by the Respondent and her father. The witness called her cousin Bina. Thereafter, the Respondent's father was screaming and shouting and he told that police will not come since she has made arrangements with them. It appears that neighbour of the witness Mr. Kothawala on hearing commotion called the Cuffe Parade police station. However, when the police did not come the witness also called Cuffe Parade police station. Once again on 6th June, 2002 the Respondent's father came to the residence and abused the Petitioner's father. On 9th June, 2002 a police officer came to matrimonial home from the Cuffe Parade police station at 5.00 pm informing them that a complaint had been lodged against the witness and her husband. They were called to police station where they were made to sit late till 11 pm. 44. On 9th June, 2002 a police officer came to matrimonial home from the Cuffe Parade police station at 5.00 pm informing them that a complaint had been lodged against the witness and her husband. They were called to police station where they were made to sit late till 11 pm. 44. According to the witness on 14th June, 2002 the Respondent left her residence i.e. matrimonial home carrying all her belongings informing her that she was not interested in living in that house. The witness states that she addressed a letter on the same day to the Cuffe Parade police station recording the aforesaid fact. On 19th June, 2002 the Respondent and her father once again tried to enter the flat but the witness and her son Vinod resisted their entry. Thereafter on 20th June, 2002 the police officer asked the witness and husband to accompany them to police station since the complaint under section 498-A of the IPC had been registered. The Petitioner at that time was in Lagos and the witness had to apply for anticipatory bail. She has further deposed that she had filed a suit against the Respondent and her parents to prevent their entry. She has further stated that since the police refused to register the case under section 498A, the Respondent had filed a private complaint in the Magistrate Court. 45. The witness has been extensively cross examined between 20th March 2007 and 11th May, 2007. She deposed that the flat which constituted the matrimonial home was purchased by her in her own name. She has denied suggestion that it was she who approached the Respondent with a proposal for matrimonial home. Various other suggestions were put to her as alluding to the fact that she was engaged in money lending business all of which was irrelevant to the issues involved. She has denied the suggestion that she had asked to arrange wedding at Taj Mahal hotel. She has stated that the Respondent has kept clothes and jewellery in one of the cupboard under lock and key and the key was in the Petitioner's possession. She denied the suggestion that she harassed or tortured the Respondent because she had not provided any dowry. She has denied suggestion that these were disputes between the Petitioner and his brother. She has stated that the Respondent has kept clothes and jewellery in one of the cupboard under lock and key and the key was in the Petitioner's possession. She denied the suggestion that she harassed or tortured the Respondent because she had not provided any dowry. She has denied suggestion that these were disputes between the Petitioner and his brother. She has denied that in her evidence she sought to cover up allegations allegedly made by the Petitioner. She has admitted to the meeting between the Respondent's parents, herself in order to attempt to resolve the issues faced by the parties. She denied having given any assurance of any kind to the Respondent's parents. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross examination. It is further material to note that the witness does not state that the Respondent has picked up jewellery while leaving the daughter Ayesha. She has denied having committed any offence under section 498-A of IPC. 46. The third witness was Bina Sippy. Bina Sippy was cousin of Mrs. Asha Kripalani, the Petitioner's mother. She has deposed that in November 2001, she got a call from her cousin Asha -Petitioner's mother to the effect that the Respondent and Respondent's father had manhandled the Petitioner's mother. On 5th June. 2002 she received a phone call from the house of the Petitioner's mother complaining that the Respondent's father has forcibly entered the house and pushed her into one room. On hearing this, the witness proceeded to house of the Petitioner's mother and when she arrived their she found that the Respondent's father was shouting and abusing the Petitioner's mother. The Respondent's father informed the witness that even if she complained to the police the witness would be arrested as he had made arrangements with the police. The witness deposed that the Petitioner's mother has called to the police station on couple of other occasions. The witness has deposed about ownership of the flat in which the Petitioner's mother stays and no part of the cross examination has any bearing on the issues before the Family Court. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE 47. On behalf of the Respondent, the evidence was led by two witnesses, one was the Respondent herself and the second was the Respondent's father Murli Lekhraj. The Respondent has deposed that the Petitioner's mother was extremely dominant and she exercised control over the Respondent right from inception. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE 47. On behalf of the Respondent, the evidence was led by two witnesses, one was the Respondent herself and the second was the Respondent's father Murli Lekhraj. The Respondent has deposed that the Petitioner's mother was extremely dominant and she exercised control over the Respondent right from inception. That while choosing the wedding invitation card, the Petitioner's mother insisted on using a card which was to her liking failing which she threatened to call off the engagement. In other instances involving the Petitioner's mother, the deponent states that huge amounts were incurred towards the costs of wedding and gifts were provided by the Respondent's family to the Petitioner and his family members. The mother of the Petitioner was still unhappy. She deposed that the relationship between the Petitioner and his brother were cordial and this was clear when she came to Lagos. The Petitioner was asked to leave his brother's house. The Petitioner rented another apartment and furnished flat with at a cost of Rs. 50 lakhs with costly furniture and gadgets and even cutlery from London. She has deposed to the Petitioner's life style that he had two maid servants, a cook, three cars and two sweepers. According to her, the Petitioner owns the company Anivin Nigeria Ltd. To meet requirements of Nigerian Government two locals Directors were kept on board for the sake of formality and his income was about Rs. 60 lakhs per annum. 48. She has further deposed that on her arrival in Mumbai in December 1993, she was staying with the Petitioner's mother at the matrimonial home during which period the Petitioner's mother quarreled with her, alluding to the fact that the Respondent's parents have not provided gifts to her. The situation was aggravated to such an extent that the Petitioner in a fit of anger threw away gifts presented to him into the sea off Gateway of India. She has deposed that Petitioner's mother abused the Respondent when she went to her parents flat at Blue Haven, notwithstanding the fact that she was in her sixth month of pregnancy. She complained of constant humiliation by the Petitioner who was joined by his mother. Both of them had no regard for tender state of health during pregnancy. She has deposed that Petitioner's mother abused the Respondent when she went to her parents flat at Blue Haven, notwithstanding the fact that she was in her sixth month of pregnancy. She complained of constant humiliation by the Petitioner who was joined by his mother. Both of them had no regard for tender state of health during pregnancy. After the return of the Petitioner to Lagos he picked up quarrel for insignificant matters and on one occasion dragged her from one room to another in long passage by ignoring the fact that she was in seventh month of pregnancy. According to her, the Petitioner regularly assaulted and abused her and asked her to abort the child. The Respondent then came back to India in month of February 1994 and stayed with the Petitioner's mother at matrimonial home although she was inclined to do so she was subjected to severe insults. She was continuously insulted and humiliated for the reason that demands made by the Petitioner's mother at the time of marriage had not been met. 49. It is further stated in the evidence that daily harassment had taken toll on her health. She deposed that the Petitioner used to be very harsh, insulting, nagged and quarreled as a result of which she was suffering in health which could have effected the child. She stated that on account of such insensitive treatment, she was in labour 12 days ahead of the schedule date and after four days of continuous labour she delivered a baby girl on 13.4.1994. Although the Petitioner was not present at the time of delivery, he came next day and picked up quarrel with her parents and preventing them from holding the baby. She deposed that even after return from hospital when she was taken to the matrimonial home, she was ill treated. The taunts continued. 50. The Respondent has further deposed to the instances when she visited Singapore, on the invitation of her parents, a party was arranged by the Respondent's father on the occasion of visit of the Petitioner and his family. The Petitioner accidentally fell from the staircase and fractured his leg. The Petitioner kept criticizing her parents for this fall and returned to Lagos after some days. The Petitioner accidentally fell from the staircase and fractured his leg. The Petitioner kept criticizing her parents for this fall and returned to Lagos after some days. She deposed to the fact that although the Petitioner permitted the Respondent and daughter to join her parents on holiday in London for about three weeks at the best of locations, the Petitioner had not even once called up and spoken to their daughter Ayesha. She deposed although he had paid for the tickets she had re-paid him. 51. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner is an egocentric person and could not tolerate her father, due to this reason, he vented his anger on the Respondent ably instigated by the Petitioner's mother. She has deposed to an instance in November 1997, when the Respondent's parents visited Lagos and had been invited to Petitioner's brothers' house for dinner along with the Respondent and daughter Ayesha. Apparently, on their return, the Petitioner picked up a quarrel with the Respondent and her parents. He was completely drunk. He continued his misbehavior and removed all his clothes to the utter shock of the Respondent and her parents. According to her, the Petitioner was habitually humiliating her. The Petitioner even blamed her for the refusal by the U.K. High Commission in Singapore to issue visa to her and the daughter to visit the U.K. She feels insecure and afraid of going back to Lagos as the Petitioner may brutally beat her. She has developed fear complex and she could not get proper rest and peace. According to her the Petitioner's parents also did not want her to reside at the matrimonial home. She further deposed that she was requested to stay at Blue Haven, her father's place since the Petitioner's sister had come and was residing in matrimonial home. According to the Petitioner, she was shabbily treated. She had developed hypothyroid condition. She asked the Petitioner for some money for her medical treatment. However he refused and instead asked her to use own monies and hence she withdrew money from OCBC bank and according to her the money belongs to her as she has received gifts from time to time. 52. The witness goes on to depose to various instances of physical and mental torture by the Petitioner. In December 1998, the child Ayesha developed Chicken pox. 52. The witness goes on to depose to various instances of physical and mental torture by the Petitioner. In December 1998, the child Ayesha developed Chicken pox. According to her, the Petitioner did not call the Respondent to Lagos, but he agreed to bring daughter to Mumbai to stay with her. She deposed that later she had agreed to go back to Lagos with the daughter but on the appointed day when the Petitioner did not come to fetch them from the Respondent's parents home, inquiries were made with the Airlines and she came to know that the Petitioner has already flown back to Lagos. According to the Respondent from February 1999 to February 2000 when the Petitioner was not in the company of his mother, they had good marital relations. They went to holidays abroad and this joyful period was very short since the Petitioner's mother influenced him to the great extent. In September 2000, the Petitioner complained that the Petitioner assaulted the Respondent resulting in some damage to the spinal cord. None of them looked after the Petitioner. When the Petitioner was in Mumbai she requested her parents to come. The Petitioner refused to speak them although they had come all the way from Singapore. According to the Respondent her mother-in-law was insisting that her father should transfer the Blue Haven flat to the Respondent's name. 53. According to the Respondent, life continued in the same manner till 2001 and daily life was torturous "physical kicking and punching" had become common. The things came to a head on 2nd November, 2001 when Petitioner started quarreling with the Respondent on some insignificant issue. Both the parents in law joined the Petitioner in beating the Respondent. She therefore informed her parents that all three persons were beating her. Her parents then came to the matrimonial home. During the ensuing the altercation, the daughter was crying uncontrollably and the Respondent left with her parents and the Petitioner refused to allow the daughter with her. The Petitioner lodged a complaint against the Respondent and a cross complaint was filed by the Respondent and her parents. According to her all her clothes, jewellery were lying in the cupboard in the matrimonial home. 54. Sometime later, the Petitioner had left for Lagos leaving their daughter in the custody of his mother without consulting the Respondent. The Petitioner lodged a complaint against the Respondent and a cross complaint was filed by the Respondent and her parents. According to her all her clothes, jewellery were lying in the cupboard in the matrimonial home. 54. Sometime later, the Petitioner had left for Lagos leaving their daughter in the custody of his mother without consulting the Respondent. She was deprived of an opportunity of looking after the child with the result Ayesha was developing bad habits by staying with her grandmother. 55. Further deposition refers to the visit of the Respondent and daughter to Singapore with permission of the Petitioner and when they returned and stayed in matrimonial home along with her daughter, her movements were restricted and was asked to stay in the bedroom. Her stay was like house arrest. The telephone in her room was removed. She was not given food. She was required to cook her own food. The main door was locked "from inside" and the keys were with mother-in-law. This was according to the Respondent amounted to torture with implied knowledge of the Petitioner. She made a written complaint with Cuffe Parade police station on 11th June, 2002. According to her, she stayed in the flat till 14th June, 2002. She informed her father about the same. She went to her father's house and stayed for few days, when she returned to matrimonial home her mother-in-law refused entry. Once again, she went to the police station. Since the police did not take action, she was compelled to file a criminal case under section 498-A against the Petitioner and in-laws for treating her inhumanly physically and mentally for their illegal demands. 56. She has deposed that she has studied only upto 10th standard and was not qualified to get any employment and, therefore, she is entitled for Rs. 70,000/- per month including school fees as the Petitioner was earning Rs. 5 lakhs per month and living luxurious life and liable to maintain the Respondent and daughter. The Respondent had deposed that she is entitled to stay in the matrimonial home which is shown as address along with relevant record. She cannot be deprived of her right to stay in the matrimonial home. Alternatively, she is entitled to suitable accommodation in the Mumbai for herself and her daughter which the Petitioner should provide. However, the Petitioner has not sought custody of the child. She cannot be deprived of her right to stay in the matrimonial home. Alternatively, she is entitled to suitable accommodation in the Mumbai for herself and her daughter which the Petitioner should provide. However, the Petitioner has not sought custody of the child. He is not bothered to find out whereabouts and thus she states that she has no interest in the marriage and the Petitioner has filed the case on frivolous grounds. 57. The Respondent has been extensively cross examined. According to the Respondent, she has no business income or any assets in her name. She was unable to state the assets standing in her name, bank accounts etc. She does not know whether the Income Tax returns have been filed and her father knows about her financial transactions. She was confronted with the Income Tax returns filed by her for the year 2004-05, 2003-04, 2001-02. However, she has denied knowledge of the same. The annual returns of Saniva International Ltd. was shown to her. She admitted the document. She also admitted that she has transferred USD 52,500/- from the OCBC Bank account to father's account. The amount was transferred in Saniva International PTE Ltd. According to her the money belonged to her. 58. She admitted that she had not disputed the correspondence sent to advocate of the Petitioner since they were as per instructions. She admitted to holding Provident Fund account, bank account at Central Bank of India but she was unaware of the detail operation since according to her these were manage by her father. She admits that she resides in NCPA Apartment from November 2001 to May 2002 which is her parent's residence whenever she visits India. Thus, she admits that her parents have residence at Blue Haven and also NCPA Apartments. She was unaware that the daughter was in touch with the Petitioner on telephone till July 2002. She admitted that her Thyroid problem had first surfaced in 1998 while she was at Mumbai. Thereafter, he visited her parents at Singapore. She admitted that she was hospitalised only for a day for a check up and her treatment continued till January 1999. 59. In February 1999, she went to Lagos. Before this from October to December 1998 the daughter alone was staying with the Petitioner. Upon being confronted with her passport she admitted that she travelled to Bangkok from 4.12.1998 to 10.12.1998. 59. In February 1999, she went to Lagos. Before this from October to December 1998 the daughter alone was staying with the Petitioner. Upon being confronted with her passport she admitted that she travelled to Bangkok from 4.12.1998 to 10.12.1998. According to her when she travelled, she was advised to take rest. In Paragraph 45 of the cross examination she admitted that the letter dated 25.9.1998 part of Exhibit-120 colly. was sent by her from her father's house. She did not recall whether she was the Director of Jayem Bombay. She denied the suggestion that when she left on 25.5.1998 she had no knowledge that she was suffering from Thyroid problem. She further deposed that although there were frequent quarrels between the Petitioner and herself there was no reason divorce between them and she is still known by name of Vinita Anil Kripalani. 60. She admitted that in the year 2001 daughter Ayesha had Christmas vacation for three weeks but she did not go to bring Ayesha to spend holidays with her since the school was closed. She admitted that she did not approach any authority to get temporary custody of the child during holidays. She admitted that during these three weeks Ayesha lived with her grandparents and they took care of her. She was residing at Nariman Point and Ayesha was residing about ten minutes away from the house of grandparents. Despite meeting the child at Christmas party, she did not make any efforts to get the daughter to stay with her for Christmas holidays. According to her she did so because she wanted to reconcile. The following specific question was put to witness: "Q. You did not feel it necessary to bring the daughter when you knew that the Petitioner is in Lagos and the daughter is living alone with the grandparents?" To which she replied that her daughter was scared of her grandparents, therefore, she was scared of meeting her. She further admitted that later in October 2000 she fetched Ayesha from the school and took her to stay with her. She admitted that she had minor problem and no surgical procedures were required till the date of the cross examination i.e. 15.10.2007. However, she deposed that she is still taking same tablets and she spends Rs. 60/- per month on the treatment of Thyroid. She admitted that she had minor problem and no surgical procedures were required till the date of the cross examination i.e. 15.10.2007. However, she deposed that she is still taking same tablets and she spends Rs. 60/- per month on the treatment of Thyroid. She admitted that from October 1998, for treatment of Thyroid she received money from her father and she did not money which was transferred from Petitioner's joint account to Saniva International PTE Ltd. She has apparently taken a loan from her father. She states that she does not understand finances or the business and as she is not educated therefore does not understand documents. She does not handle the finances of the Petitioner and she does not personally know what are the finances of the Petitioner nor she tried to find out about them. She admitted to have bank account and bank lockers in Singapore and in India. The locker in Singapore was in the joint names of the Petitioner and herself. 61. She admitted that the company in Singapore is a profit making entity and several amounts were shown as remuneration paid to the Directors as also accommodation paid for the Directors. She, however, denied that she was receiving Director's fee in Singapore Dollars from Saniva International Pvt. Ltd. She has not been hospitalised or undergone any surgical treatment for any other ailments. She claimed that during 19.12.2005 to January 2006 she was bedridden. However, her passport showed that she had immigration stamp on 16.12.2005 and once again an immigration entry at Bangkok is shown on 20.12.2005. When confronted she admitted these entries, she admitted to having travelled. 62. Furthermore, she admitted that the residential address is shown as that of Singapore in Exhibit-119. As far as the NRO and NRE status are concerned, she stated that her father would deal with the same. According to her, her father had used her name for the business. She admitted to have visited her parents in Singapore every year. She deposed that the Petitioner was a puppet in the hands of his parents. Upon her being shown Form 32 issued under Income Tax Act, 1956 she admitted the address is shown as a Director of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. and having her address Blue Haven CHS, Mumbai. She admitted to have visited her parents in Singapore every year. She deposed that the Petitioner was a puppet in the hands of his parents. Upon her being shown Form 32 issued under Income Tax Act, 1956 she admitted the address is shown as a Director of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. and having her address Blue Haven CHS, Mumbai. According to her, her father uses her name for the financial transactions but the benefit of the same are received by her father. That the father controls all companies. She has resigned as Director from all companies. She has not manipulated the accounts after the matrimonial petition was filed. She admitted to correctness of income tax returns filed for the years 2001-02, 2003-04 and she signed the said document. The contents thereof are also true. She has not given any particulars of the interest of the earnings. She also admitted that the Petitioner has given her money for personal expenses in Lagos. These amounts were used for household expenses. On 25th October, 2007 during the cross examination a specific question was put to her whether she had visited her daughter when she was in Lagos and suffering from Chicken pox. She answered that she was not allowed to go there as she needed a transport from the airport. She admitted that her cousin Ritika Sawlani lived in the year 1999 at Lagos. She did not make any efforts to contact her or to request her pick up her at the airport and to visit her daughter. 63. She admitted that she knew address where she resided earlier in Lagos and furthermore she admitted that when she went to Thailand on vacation with her parents had accompanied her from Bombay. She did not recollect how many times she left the daughter with the Petitioner and his parents and visited her parents till November 2001. Her parents visited India once in a year. However, when they are not in India their houses at NCPA apartment and Blue Haven are unoccupied. According to her since the date of marriage till 2001 she has never stayed at NCPA Apartments or Blue Haven. She denied the suggestion that she did not fulfill her responsibility towards her daughter. She denied suggestion that she did not look after the daughter when she had chicken pox and went for holidays. According to her since the date of marriage till 2001 she has never stayed at NCPA Apartments or Blue Haven. She denied the suggestion that she did not fulfill her responsibility towards her daughter. She denied suggestion that she did not look after the daughter when she had chicken pox and went for holidays. In Paragraph 64 of the cross examination, she admitted that when the petition was filed neither the Respondent nor her parents have filed any complaint against the Petitioner or his parents. According to her she did not find it necessary to file a complaint since both the parents were trying to patch up the differences. However, respective parents did not succeed. In paragraph 65, she denied knowledge of her having 50 shares of Rs. 10/- each in Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. She deposed that she was unaware that she was Director of Sanwa Finance Ltd. or Saniva Trust. She also was unaware that she had 600 redeemable shares of Rs. 1000/- each in Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. It is true that the Petitioner had filed complaint under section 498A of IPC. She has denied the suggestion that there were no instances of beating by the Petitioner. 64. Furthermore, she denied the suggestion that she has for the first time in her affidavit of evidence denied that her daughter was tortured. She has denied the suggestion that she made these allegations only after the matrimonial petition was filed. However, in her written statement she has not mentioned that the Petitioner hit her while in pregnant condition. Furthermore, in complaint dated 13.4.2002 and 19.6.2002 she has not stated that she was dragged and slapped as contended in paragraph 24 of her written statement. She has not mentioned the version that the Petitioner dragged from one room to another and kicked and slapped in the complaint dated 13.4.2002 and 19.6.2002. The Respondent has not taken any steps to defreeze the bank accounts referred in Exhibit-144. Furthermore, in paragraph 103 of the notes of cross examination she has admitted to the fact that her sister Varsha Waswani was the Director of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. as also Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd., Palmar Investment and Trading Co. The Respondent has not taken any steps to defreeze the bank accounts referred in Exhibit-144. Furthermore, in paragraph 103 of the notes of cross examination she has admitted to the fact that her sister Varsha Waswani was the Director of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. as also Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd., Palmar Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Lekhraj and Sons (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent was then shown balance sheet of Palmar Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. dated 31.3.2009 and the balance sheet of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. dated 31.3.2005. According to her the shares of these companies were not transferred in the her name and it belong to her father and she had no knowledge of transactions of business. However, she said that the share transfer have taken place as per instructions of the father. She has not received any benefit from the shares which are in her name. According to the witness she was dummy Director and her name was used by her father. She does not know reason in using her name. She was not aware that her tax returns mentions her name as share holder or the Director. She has denied the suggestion that she filed false complaint under section 498-A in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court against the Petitioner and his mother because they had chosen to the Court for relief. 65. She admitted the allegations made in the complaint included the dowry demands, assault, bad treatment and cruelty and that she has not challenged the order of the Magistrate on dropping the charges against the Petitioner and his parents. She admitted that the Petitioner's parents are, however, 70 years of age and that she has made an application for issue of warrant of arrest against the Petitioner's parents on 6.2.2006. She admitted that she was irregular in attending the Family Court and has not filed written statement for over three years. She denied suggestion that she did not filed the written statement deliberately since she wanted to proceed with the criminal matters. She further deposed that the criminal matter is prior in time of filing the written statement. She admitted that in written statement she has not mentioned regarding the allegations of damage to spinal cord or criminal complaint wherein she described it as severe back pain. She further deposed that the criminal matter is prior in time of filing the written statement. She admitted that in written statement she has not mentioned regarding the allegations of damage to spinal cord or criminal complaint wherein she described it as severe back pain. The Respondent admitted that she had not stated that the Petitioner was in a drunken condition on 2.11.2000 and that her mother received injuries and the plates were flung at her. In paragraph 116, she has admitted that she was not happy to come to India but she was not ready to go back to Lagos. She also stated that she cannot return the money in joint account that was transferred to her account because the money was already spent. According to her, the money belong to her and she did not have documents to substantiate her claim to the said company. On a specific question put to the witness, whether the allegations that the Petitioner's mother's game plan was to sent her back with Ayesha were true. She answered that she did not know about the game plan. It will be necessary to reproduce the said question and answer: "Q. The allegation against the Petitioner's mother that her game plan was to sent me back with Aayesha is false? A. I do not know about the above mentioned statement." 66. According to her all the letters sent by her advocate to the Petitioner were sent after the Respondent had read them. She admitted in paragraph 122 that she had not filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights after the Petitioner filed his petition for Judicial Separation on 23.1.2002 and till she filed complaint under section 498-A of the IPC. The Petitioner admitted that several statement contained in the affidavit of evidence has not been stated in her written statement. Those are particularly pertaining to the treatment allegedly meted out to her during the pregnancy and the instances pertaining to her husband's fall and breaking his leg. The Respondent also admitted that in her written statement several other statements contained in the affidavit of evidence has not been mentioned. She denied the suggestion that she tried to improve her case in the affidavit of evidence. She, however, admitted that she had gone to various places on holidays and she had good life style with the Petitioner. She has no grievance regarding the same. She denied the suggestion that she tried to improve her case in the affidavit of evidence. She, however, admitted that she had gone to various places on holidays and she had good life style with the Petitioner. She has no grievance regarding the same. She also admitted that the Petitioner tried to provide for her whatever was possible within his capacity. However, she denied that she has incorrectly stated that the Petitioner and herself laid luxurious lifestyle while in Lagos. She further denied that she had falsely stated that the Petitioner had asked her to bring things from her father. 67. According to her, the Petitioner had cheated his brother and this she came to know only after the marriage but has not personally verified the truth of the said allegations except to state that it was money matter and the couple was asked to leave the brother's house. She contended that she had arguments with the Petitioner and brother against alleged misappropriation by the Petitioner in the business and the Petitioner was jealous and suffered from inferior complex. However, according to her, the dispute with the brother had no connection with her or marriage to the Petitioner. She has denied forcible entry to the matrimonial home with the help of father and police. 68. The next witness examined on behalf of the Respondent was Murli Lekhraj. The contents of the affidavit generally repeat various instances deposed to by the Respondent, many of these instances are not to personal knowledge of the said witness thus constituting hearsay Therefore, we do not think necessary to refer the same. He also deposed that prior to marriage, he had met the Petitioner at the New Oberoi hotel and the Petitioner promised that he would take good care of the Respondent. He then deposed the incident when after throwing away the gifts the Petitioner came to the Respondent's house and abused him and his wife in filthy manner despite the fact that the daughter of the witness (the Respondent) was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. 69. The Respondent's father referred the incident to the Petitioner reportedly in drunken condition and upset with the Respondent and her parents visiting his brother in Lagos in November 1997. The Petitioner apparently undressed fully in presence of Respondent's parents in a drunken state. 69. The Respondent's father referred the incident to the Petitioner reportedly in drunken condition and upset with the Respondent and her parents visiting his brother in Lagos in November 1997. The Petitioner apparently undressed fully in presence of Respondent's parents in a drunken state. Apparently, his brother Vinod came to calm him down and took him away to his house. He took away fax machine, car keys and all of the Respondent's monies living her penniless. Apparently, this is cited by the witness as evidence of hatred that the Petitioner harboured against the Respondent's father. He deposed to the incident when the UK consulate in Singapore declined to issue visa to the Respondent's daughter since the application would required to be referred to high commission at Lagos and since the Respondent and their daughter were residents of Nigeria. The Petitioner refused to accept this and instead blamed the Respondent's father of instigating the Respondent against going to London. He has deposed to the fact that he spoke to the Petitioner's father and expressed the concern that his daughter being assaulted and beaten by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's father apparently referring to son stated that he was mad. He deposed that the Petitioner's father assured him that he would have word with the Petitioner and would resolve all the issues. He admits that he trusted the Petitioner's father, however, in the same breath he states that it was well thought plan and to keep his daughter away from matrimonial home and suggested that his daughter should stay at Blue Haven with Ayesha. Various other aspects which have been deposed by the Respondent, has been deposed to by the witness. In material terms as far as aspects of Respondent's worth are concerned, it is material to refer to those aspects which have bearing on the aspect of maintenance. In this respect, it is stated by the witness that the Respondent is not holding any shares her name or under the name of her trust and that she is not a Director of any of the companies. He stated that none of the companies have issued any dividend on the equity shares and the Respondent has not been receiving any income from the shares. She was only a nominee Director and she was never majority share holder and she had no authority. He stated that none of the companies have issued any dividend on the equity shares and the Respondent has not been receiving any income from the shares. She was only a nominee Director and she was never majority share holder and she had no authority. He has categorically stated that the Respondent is neither a Director nor have been a shareholder of any of the companies in Singapore. 70. According to him ICICI bank A/c. No. 000401131576 was opened as joint account with him for convenience of the Respondent, who was thrown out of home without offering a single rupee and that the burden and responsibility of bringing up their daughter Ayesha. He deposed that Public Provident Fund A/c. No. 994 has been closed and the account in Indian Overseas Bank bearing No. 91543 and 91548 have been closed. M/s. Vanita Fashions have closed operations in 1991-92 much before the marriage of his daughter and therefore it is not relevant to consider this aspect. He deposed that Vanita trust was set up in 1990. The trust was dormant and eventually non operative. The trust shares were duly transferred in 2001 and 2002 when the group companies went into reorgainsation by virtue of some of the companies went into liquidation. According to him the account in OCBC bank is opened by the Petitioner and Respondent at his behest since he also held account there for depositing cash gifts from him to his daughter from time to time. However, the name of the Petitioner was mentioned first in the account since it was respect for the son in law and for tax planning authorities since the Respondent is holding permanent resident permit and all income in her name would have attracted 22% tax at that time. According to him, the Respondent had withdrawn her own monies and it has nothing to do with the Petitioner. 71. Furthermore, he stated that the Respondent and the daughter went to Africa and Europe in the year 1999. According to the witness the Petitioner had illegally blocked her accounts in the said bank and those were required to be unblocked so that some can to used accordingly. 71. Furthermore, he stated that the Respondent and the daughter went to Africa and Europe in the year 1999. According to the witness the Petitioner had illegally blocked her accounts in the said bank and those were required to be unblocked so that some can to used accordingly. Furthermore, he states that the Petitioner is holding illegal fixed deposits amounting to USD 32,500 belonging to the Respondent which he claim to have been gifted to the Respondent in cash and which the Respondent had given to the Petitioner. He claims that his daughter is indisputably dependent upon him for her day to day livelihood since she has absolutely no money although it is responsibility of the Petitioner to maintain her in law. He produced details of capital account and personal balance sheet from 1994 to October 2007. According to him, the petition is false and the Petitioner and his family has tortured his daughter physically and mentally to drive her out of the matrimonial home because she does not bring dowry. 72. In cross examination on 10.12.2007 he admitted that on 5.9.2001 600 preferential shares of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. worth Rs. 6 lakhs were redeemed. He further admitted, however, this according to him companies 2400 shares at face value Rs. 1000 aggregating to Rs. 24 lakhs were redeemed for creating Capital Redemption Reserved. According to him, the Respondent was not equity share holder of the company. He admitted that Sanwa Garments was a subsidiary company in relation to Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. According to him, the Respondent is not concerned with the said companies. The witness was then shown documents of Sanwa Finance Ltd. and particularly scheduled forming part of the balance sheet as on 31.3.2000 but he refused to answer any question relating to the document on the pretext that it is irrelevant. "I do not want to produce B/s of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. For the financial year 31.3.2007. I say that Respondent is not the shareholder and therefore the document is not relevant. It is available with the R.O.C. I do not have documents of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. available on the internet. "I do not want to produce B/s of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. For the financial year 31.3.2007. I say that Respondent is not the shareholder and therefore the document is not relevant. It is available with the R.O.C. I do not have documents of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. available on the internet. I do not want to produce any documents in respect of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. I say that Respondent was not shareholder." In relation to balance sheet of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. as at 31.3.2007, his answer reads thus: "I do not want to answer any question in respect of above mentioned document. I say that the Respondent was not the shareholder and therefore, it is irrelevant. It is taken on record and marked as (Exh. 165). Not true to say that I am refusing to answer any of the question in respect of any of the above documents because the Respondent has interest in the company and a substantial income to maintain herself. Not true to say that I do not want to produce the documents in order to suppress the same and mislead the Court. Respondent is not obliged to produce documents in respect of Jayem Exports and Sanwa Finance I say that she is not a share holder." 73. In further cross examination he has stated that Vanita Fashions was a proprietary concern of the Respondent and his wife and the witness had no concern with the said company except that they had helped the Respondent. He denied the suggestion he handles all the transactions of the Respondent. However, he did not dispute that the Respondent's version in her cross examination to the effect that her father handled all the financial transactions. He admitted that balance sheet of Vanita Fashions shown to him of 1994 under heading Loans and Advances discloses that the Respondent had given a loan in to Vanita Trust of Rs. 3,05,000/- and this loans continued in till the year ending 31st March 2000. That there is reduction in amount of Loans and Advances since the Respondent's father paid certain amounts to the Respondent for purchase of the shares in Vanita trust. He further admitted that the balance sheet as of 31st March, 2002 shows Loans and Advances as Rs. 3,05,000/- and this loans continued in till the year ending 31st March 2000. That there is reduction in amount of Loans and Advances since the Respondent's father paid certain amounts to the Respondent for purchase of the shares in Vanita trust. He further admitted that the balance sheet as of 31st March, 2002 shows Loans and Advances as Rs. 1,35,000/- which shows that Vinita Kripalani had given Loans and Advances to Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. The balance sheet as of 31.3.2000 showed in the investment column that the Respondent held shares of 12,75,770/- and the balance sheet of 31.3.2001 it is disclosed that the Respondent held shares of 12,74,520/-. He, however, denied the suggestion that he had falsely stated that Vanita Fashion was dormant company. In further cross examination he stated that the Respondent is not concerned with Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. and that his company belongs to him and the Respondent is not concerned with the company. 74. He refused to answer in respect of annual return of 27.9.2002 of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. which pertains to his company. He continued his refusal to answer questions pertaining to his companies. He admitted that in column 3 of the balance sheet Exhibit 168 i.e. amount of loans and advances were shown as Rs. 6,50,88,008/-. He stated that the Respondent had only 10 equity shares of the company and therefore she does not become owner of the company. He admitted that the loans and advances as of 31.3.2005 in the said company is Rs. 5,71,78,535/- and these are entries of account adjustments. According to the witness on being shown Exhibit 166 he stated that the shares mentioned therein were transferred on the advice of the tax consultant. He denied the suggestion that said shares were transferred from the Respondent in order claim maintenance in the matrimonial petition. He states that whole group which also includes Jayem Exports was reorganised. He denied that the shares in Vanita Trust were transferred with aim of manipulation to get maintenance. He admitted that all the accounts of the Respondent were held jointly with the Petitioner and Respondent had no individual NRE or NRO account. The accounts in Indian Overseas Bank were closed in 1992 and opened in ICICI bank. He undertook to produce statement of accounts of ICICI Bank which he did on the next occasion. He admitted that all the accounts of the Respondent were held jointly with the Petitioner and Respondent had no individual NRE or NRO account. The accounts in Indian Overseas Bank were closed in 1992 and opened in ICICI bank. He undertook to produce statement of accounts of ICICI Bank which he did on the next occasion. The income tax returns of the year 2003-04 the witness was shown name of trust to the Respondent is present to him the payment was made or in those accounts, certain amounts were credited. This was admitted by him. He admitted that the returns of assessment year 2002-03 were filed on 27.2.2002. The Respondent had received summons in the matrimonial petition. The Income Tax returns for assessment year 2001-02 bears name of the Respondent and therefore it was an individual return and not filed for Vanita Fashions. He admitted that the Respondent received a resident permit for Lagos. During his cross examination on 25th January 2008, he was shown document received the Registrar of the company pertaining to Palmar Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and Samba Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. He admitted that Samba Trading and Investment Company was later converted to Sanwa Finance and the Respondent and wife of witness were preferential share holders in both the companies and were shown business executives as on that date. The documents were taken on record and marked as Exhibit-175. Palmar Investment Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. owned two flats in Mumbai The witness refused to answer a pertinent question. The question and answer read thus: "Q. Is the value of both these flats is 50 to 70 crores today? A. I do not want to answer because I do not find the question relevant in relation to the Respondent." 75. He further deposed to the fact that the balance sheet of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. as of 31.3.2006, the Respondent is neither a Director nor a share holder of this company. He was unable to answer any question relating to debt balance in the proprietary business of Vanita Fashions Rs. 10,93,614/- has been credited to the Respondent. It is admitted that balance carried forward was Rs. 22,39,652/-. The witness admitted that at the relevant time the Respondent has received salary as a Director. During the cross examination on 25.1.2008 the balance sheet of 31.3.2001 the Investment in shares were shown as Rs. 12,74,520/-. 10,93,614/- has been credited to the Respondent. It is admitted that balance carried forward was Rs. 22,39,652/-. The witness admitted that at the relevant time the Respondent has received salary as a Director. During the cross examination on 25.1.2008 the balance sheet of 31.3.2001 the Investment in shares were shown as Rs. 12,74,520/-. According to him the Respondent has received the money of redemption of preferential shares of 1000 each in current assets, bank particulars of which are not shown. The investment in shares were redeemable shares of Sanwa Finance and Palmar Trading Investment, since both these shares were redeemable and therefore balance amount was Rs. 1,000/-. According to witness, the Respondent received money but has repaid loans from the said amount. However, at the same time the Respondent has made Loans and Advances to the Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. 76. According to the witness a sum of USD 52,000 withdrawn by the Respondent from joint account and transferred to Saniva International Pvt. Ltd. was her own money and money was under his control. On being asked how the account was managed, he does not state how it was manage. According to him, the Respondent was not concerned with the same. The witness later stated that the amount was shown as loan to the company which was repaid by the cheque. Later, he retracted the statement that the amount was repaid but on being asked to produce balance sheet of International Pvt. Ltd. he declined to produce and stated that he was not obliged to produce the balance sheet of Saniva International PTE Ltd. in which amount of USD 52,000 was reflected. He disagreed that the amount was siphoned by the Respondent. The witness admitted that the Respondent held 10 equity shares of Jayem Exports and Vanita Trust as also equity shares in some of the companies. The shares were held by Vanita Trust prior to filing of the petition. The Respondent and Vanita Trust had right to vote to the extent of their shares in the company. He reiterated that the Respondent was a minority shareholder. He denied the suggestion that he manipulated the accounts and balance sheet of the company. He declined to answer the question as to whether the Respondent first engagement had broken down. The Respondent and Vanita Trust had right to vote to the extent of their shares in the company. He reiterated that the Respondent was a minority shareholder. He denied the suggestion that he manipulated the accounts and balance sheet of the company. He declined to answer the question as to whether the Respondent first engagement had broken down. He also disagreed to the suggestion that in view of break down of the first engagement he took special care prior when finding the alliance with the Petitioner. He did not gave the reason as to why first alliance failed. According to him it is irrelevant. He admitted that in 1993 to 1997 he has not filed any criminal complaint against the Petitioner or his family. He admitted that he was constituted attorney of the Respondent and had appeared on her behalf in the Family Court. He has admitted that he has accompanied the Respondent to pursue criminal complaint whenever he was in town. He stated that the Respondent was not permitted to go to matrimonial home. Neither his wife nor he had filed any complaint or any proceedings in any other Court from January 2001 till the M.J. petition was filed. He was not aware whether the Petitioner wanted to end the marriage since he had filed petition for the restitution of conjugal rights and the Respondent was trying to reconcile. He admitted that he has not made any offer at Lagos where the Petitioner was living. He denied the suggestion that the Respondent had brought her daughter without consent of the Petitioner's parents. According to him, the Respondent made efforts to reconcile. He admitted that his statement about the Petitioner earning USD 2.5 million is based on rumours in the market. It is also admitted that he was not personally aware whether the Petitioner has misappropriated partnership funds in business with his brother Vinod. He was only informed that as a result of misappropriation, the Petitioner was removed from his house by his brother in which the Respondent and daughter were staying. He denied the suggestion that he had interfered with married life of the Petitioner and Respondent. According to him, the Petitioner suffered from an inferiority complex and could not tolerate success of the witness in business. He denied the suggestion that he had interfered with married life of the Petitioner and Respondent. According to him, the Petitioner suffered from an inferiority complex and could not tolerate success of the witness in business. He denied the suggestion that the averment made by him about misappropriation and the Petitioner suffering inferiority complex was demeaning and humiliating to the Petitioner. It is admitted that during the Petitioner's first visit to Singapore he did stay with the witness and on second visit he stayed at hotel and thereafter he never stayed at the residence of witness. He admitted that the Respondent had visited Singapore alone while the child was looked upon by the Petitioner and his parents. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL 77. Mrs. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to various documents on record to show that the Respondent-wife was affluent and had substantial assets of her own and had substantial earnings. It is the case of the Petitioner that once the matrimonial petition was filed and the Respondent became aware of the same she with malafide intention started diverting its share holding in various companies to other persons. According to Mrs. Rao upto March 2001 she held 600 preference shares in Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. Exhibit-117 at Page 6 and 9 other companies. She held 650 preference shares in Palmar Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and 16 other companies. She also held 50 preference shares in Modfash Exports Pvt. Ltd. and in 14 other companies. She held 10 equity shares in Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. and 14 other companies. She held 198 equity shares in Lekhraj and Sons (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. which held shares in four companies. She held 18 equity shares in Sanwa Capitals Pvt. Ltd. She held 18 equity shares in Vanita Apparels Pvt. Ltd. which in turn held shares in Lekhraj and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Palmar Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. In yet another company M/s. Jayem Fashions Pvt. Ltd. she held 100 equity shares. 78. Mrs. Rao submitted that the petition was served on the Respondent on or about 18th March, 2002 and the Respondent filed a return of income in July 2002 by which time she had systematically divested herself of the shares to create a facade of her being penniless and dependent upon the Petitioner. 78. Mrs. Rao submitted that the petition was served on the Respondent on or about 18th March, 2002 and the Respondent filed a return of income in July 2002 by which time she had systematically divested herself of the shares to create a facade of her being penniless and dependent upon the Petitioner. As far as Vanita Trust is concerned, upto March 2002 the trust held 750 equity shares in Jayem Exports held diverse shares in 14 group companies. The trust held 198 equity shares of Lekhraj Exports, Lekhraj Exports held equity shares in four group companies, namely, Jayem, Sanwa Capitals Pvt. Ltd., Vanita Apparels and Palmar. The trust held 18 shares in Vanita Apparels which in turn held equity shares in Lekhraj Sons and Palmar Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. In this manner Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the Respondent wife was extremely wealthy and had deliberately, with intention to deceive the Court divested herself of the shares. 79. In addition Mrs. Rao submitted that the Respondent had deliberately tried to make out that she had no income of her own and that she was entirely dependent upon her father for her maintenance and affairs. It is seen that between 1.4.2001 and 31.3.2002 (for assessment year 2002-03). The Respondent gifted her sister Varsha Waswani the shares held by her in Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd., Balmoral Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Vanita Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and Lekhraj and Sons Exports Pvt. Ltd. From Exhibit-160 it was pointed out that she had held shares of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vanita Trust also held shares of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. The transfer of shares by the Respondent is also recorded in various documents referred to above in particular at Page 31A-169, 31A-181, 31A-208 and other documents. According to her, therefore, the Respondent is also Director in Saniva International PTE Pvt. Ltd. a company registered in Singapore wherein she is appointed as a Director on 1.8.1998 and thereafter resigned. It is matter of record that the Respondent had transferred the money of her shares to various different persons including her sister. 80. That on the aspect of Respondent's income Mrs. Rao reiterated that the Respondent was the Director of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. She held shares in various companies. She was also the Director of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. She also held shares in 14 group companies. 80. That on the aspect of Respondent's income Mrs. Rao reiterated that the Respondent was the Director of Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. She held shares in various companies. She was also the Director of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. She also held shares in 14 group companies. In addition to this she is the share holder in Palmar Investment and Trading Co. Ltd. M/s. Palmar Investment and Trading Company Ltd. also owns two residential flats, one in NCPA Apartments at Nariman Point, Mumbai and one at Blue Haven, Malbar Hill. She also held preference shares on Modfash Exports Pvt. Ltd. which in turn held shares in 14 other group companies. Vanita Trust is the trust set up for the benefit of the Respondent. The trust held shares in Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd., Lekhraj and Sons Pvt. Ltd., Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd. and Vanita Apparels Pvt. Ltd. The second trust by name Sanwa Trust also for benefit of the Respondent and the said trust held shares in Modfash Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. Mrs. Rao further submitted that the Respondent was the Director in a company at Singapore as well and has been receiving Director's fees as known from the Exhibit-131. She submitted that the sum of USD 53,692.51 was suddenly withdrawn by the Respondent from the joint account without knowledge of the Petitioner. According to the Respondent she withdrew the amount on account of expenses for medical treatment. However, Mrs. Rao in the cross examination of the Respondent and her father brought out the fact that it was not serious ailment which required costly treatment. The Respondent has admitted in the cross examination that she withdrew the money and remitted it to a company Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd. The Respondent's father admitted that the said amount was shown as loan in the company's books of account. As far as cross examination of the father in paragraph 60 is concerned, he has admitted that the Respondent withdrew USD 53600 and transferred it to Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd. According to him, it was her own money. However, he admitted that the said amount that was transferred to Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd. which was under his control. He also admitted that the amount was shown by the company as loan from the Respondent or as the Investment and Loan Advances. Mrs. However, he admitted that the said amount that was transferred to Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd. which was under his control. He also admitted that the amount was shown by the company as loan from the Respondent or as the Investment and Loan Advances. Mrs. Rao submitted that the Respondent father had admitted that the amount of USD 53600 was shown as loan to the company. He further admitted that the Respondent does not have to pay any income tax in view of the loan. He opposed the admission that the Respondent's demand is crucial and it shows that the money was not required by her daughter for medical treatment at all and it was deliberately withdrawn and transferred to Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd. showing it as loan. According to Mrs. Rao, the entire approach of the Respondent is to mislead and make false statements before the Court. Thus, it is evident that the amount was not withdrawn by the Respondent for the sake of use of medical expenses but she had made false statement on oath. It has come in the evidence that as far as the Respondent's bank account in Singapore is concerned, it has come in the Respondent's cross examination in paragraph 47 that she was wealthy person with sufficient means. 81. Mrs. Rao also submitted that from the Income tax returns of the Respondent for the years 2001-02 shows that the Petitioner was not ordinary resident in India and the address of permanently residing in India. She made reference to cross examination. She invited our attention to paragraph 26 of her cross examination wherein she admitted that she is filing income tax returns since prior to her marriage although she volunteered that she had no income. The income tax records shows the address is of the father's business address of Saniva International Pte Ltd. at Jayem House, Apollo. In her father's cross examination in paragraph 20 he admitted that Vanita Fashions was a proprietary concern of the Respondent and that he and his wife is not concerned with the acknowledgment except that he helped the Respondent. He denied that he handled financial transaction of the Respondent. Yet when confronted with the Respondent's answer in cross examination that her father handles all her financial transactions, he did not dispute that statement. He denied that he handled financial transaction of the Respondent. Yet when confronted with the Respondent's answer in cross examination that her father handles all her financial transactions, he did not dispute that statement. Her father also admitted in paragraph 20 of the cross examination Exhibit-116 did not disclose balance sheet of the Respondent. According to him Vanita Trust has not filed any tax returns since it has no corpus or bank accounts. He deposed that income tax returns filed by the Respondent for the assessment year 2000-01 corresponding to accounting year 2000 and balance sheet relating to personal return were filed. However, he did not produce the same and denied that he was deliberately suppressing the balance sheet. In paragraph 30 of the cross examination he admitted that he held NRE and NRO accounts jointly with his daughter which was closed in year 1994 and opened in ICICI bank. These were subsequently produced in the cross examination on 17th January, 2007. Thus, according to Mrs. Rao that the Respondent held NRE and NRO bank accounts jointly with her father and that were opened for the business purpose and there was no transactions for the relevant period. There was no need to open such accounts and close them only to open fresh account in different bank. Mrs. Rao stressed upon the fact that the Respondent was regularly residing in Singapore as well since she had been appointed as the Director in Singapore company. According to her Exhibit-173 at page 760 of the compilation reveals that in order to be entitled to be a Director in the company in Singapore it is necessary to be resident of Singapore. 82. She relied upon deposition of PW 2 Murli Lekhraj, father of the Respondent who has admitted in paragraph 46 and 47 of the cross examination that there were transactions between Vanita Trust and the Respondent to return loan to Vanita Kripalani of Rs. 3 lakhs Further he claimed that although there were their debit and credit entries the trust does not have bank account of its own. He was unable to explain the debit balance in the Vanita Fashions of Rs. 10,93,814/- which has been credited to Vanita Kripalani. 83. Mrs. 3 lakhs Further he claimed that although there were their debit and credit entries the trust does not have bank account of its own. He was unable to explain the debit balance in the Vanita Fashions of Rs. 10,93,814/- which has been credited to Vanita Kripalani. 83. Mrs. Rao also relied upon the fact that the witness admitted that the credit entry of the Respondent that he had received profits from Vanita Fashions and has also received salary as the Director which is recorded in capital accounts particulars. In fact as of 31.3.1994 according to Mrs. Rao the balance carried forward of Vanita Kripalani capital account was Rs. 22,96,322/-. Mrs. Rao then drew our attention to the fact that the Respondent's allegations which were made during the examination in chief by the Respondent were false. For instance she states that allegations of misappropriation of the Petitioner's brother's monies contained in paragraph 4 and 5 of the affidavit of evidence of the Respondent has been falsified. She submits in the evidence, the Respondent has admitted that she has no personal knowledge of having cheated his brother. So also the Respondent's fathers evidence in his affidavit in paragraph 6 and 8 relate to dispute of demands of gifts and instead pertaining to the alleged dispute between brothers as a result in Petitioner's elder brother refusing to accept keys to the suit were all hearsay. Likewise, the contentions of misappropriation in paragraph 8 relate to the property belonging to his brother is not to his personal knowledge. Mrs. Rao highlighted the fact that the Respondent has made certain allegations for the first time in her answers to the questions put to her. In paragraph 33 of her cross examination the Respondent has made false allegations against the Petitioner. Further allegations by the sister of the Respondent in paragraph 18 to the effect that the Petitioner threatened to Respondent with divorce was contradicted by the Respondent in paragraph 46 of her cross examination when she admitted that she wanted the marriage to work and although there were quarrels between them there was no talk of divorce between her and the Petitioner. 84. Mrs. Rao submitted that the Respondent has deliberately made false statement on several occasions. Firstly, in paragraph 44 of her cross examination. According to Mrs. 84. Mrs. Rao submitted that the Respondent has deliberately made false statement on several occasions. Firstly, in paragraph 44 of her cross examination. According to Mrs. Rao the particulars of travel provided in paragraph 44 did not match with the particulars provided by the Respondent herself in Exhibit-84. Mrs. Rao also pointed out the fact that although the reason she provided for not attending the Family Court on 19th November, 2005 was that she was suffering from ill health, in fact she was attending some party with her friends. To this effect Mrs. Rao relied upon Exhibit-132 in the compilation. According to her till the Respondent continued to make several false statements such as being bed ridden from 19.11.2005 to January 2006 whereas she was found to have attended parties at least on 11.12.2005 and has admitted in her cross examination in paragraph 50. Furthermore, scrutiny of Respondent's passport reveals that she passed through immigration on 16.12.2005 and went to Bangkok on 20.12.2005. She admits both entries in the passport but denied that she made false statement that she was bed ridden between 19.11.2005 and January 2006. According to Mrs. Rao the Respondent has herself contended that she had good relationship with the Petitioner. She made reference to the paragraph 24 of the written statement and paragraph 20 of the affidavit of evidence wherein, admitted to have good relations with the Petitioner. She also referred to paragraph 34, 46, 115, 167, and 170 of cross examination in order highlight her contention that she has admitted that she travelled to Lagos. In this manner Mrs. Rao submitted that as far as allegations of cruel behavior is concerned, there is no doubt that the Respondent had treated the Petitioner with cruelty and she cited instances referred to us in the pleadings and evidence. 85. Mrs. Rao further submitted that the Respondent is extremely wealthy and has huge assets, self acquired as well as derived from her father. She was not in need of maintenance and therefore was not entitled to any maintenance at all, let alone enhancement. She then contended that the Respondent had deserted the Petitioner and highlighted various instances. First of all in August 1994, the Petitioner asked the Respondent to join him to London to spend some time with him. The Respondent declined to do so on the ground that the daughter has been refused a visa. She then contended that the Respondent had deserted the Petitioner and highlighted various instances. First of all in August 1994, the Petitioner asked the Respondent to join him to London to spend some time with him. The Respondent declined to do so on the ground that the daughter has been refused a visa. Therefore in September 1998 the Respondent came to Mumbai from Lagos and that she wished to remain in Mumbai. Moreover, her father informed the Petitioner that he would look after the Respondent and that the Petitioner should look after his daughter Ayesha. Mrs. Rao drew our attention that on 25th September, 1998 she withdrew monies from OCBC bank Singapore and took away jewellery from the locker at Central Bank of India, Mumbai. On 6.10.1998 she allowed the Petitioner to take Ayesha to Lagos and in December when the child Ayesha was suffering from chicken pox although the Petitioner requested the Respondent to come to Lagos, she declined despite having resident permit of Lagos. The Respondent, instead proceeded on holiday with parents to Bangkok. This is evident from paragraph 44, 55 and 56 of her cross examination. Further evidence of desertion according to the Respondent is evident from the fact that on 2.11.2001 the Respondent left matrimonial home at 26, Iris and her father suggested that her daughter Ayesha to stay with Petitioner's parents. It is admitted by the Respondent in paragraph 24 that between 2.11.2001 and 4.6.2001, the Respondent made no offer to reconcile and restore the marriage. She also failed to attend the Family Court hearings even after having served with summons in the petition. She failed to attend the Family Court in March 2002 instead filed a police complaint on 13th April, 2002 alleging that the Petitioner and his parents were demanding money and obtained arrest warrant in the name of Petitioner's parents. She has admitted in the cross examination in paragraph 116 and 121 that she has no intention to return to Lagos. Accordingly Mrs. Rao submitted that it has come in her evidence that the Respondent deserted the Petitioner. Mrs. Rao further submitted that the Respondent has filed Petition bearing No. B-2 of 2006 in the Family Court at Bandra seeking maintenance and residential accommodation. However, the same was withdrawn after the Family Court dissolved the marriage. 86. Mrs. Accordingly Mrs. Rao submitted that it has come in her evidence that the Respondent deserted the Petitioner. Mrs. Rao further submitted that the Respondent has filed Petition bearing No. B-2 of 2006 in the Family Court at Bandra seeking maintenance and residential accommodation. However, the same was withdrawn after the Family Court dissolved the marriage. 86. Mrs. Rao referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 266 wherein it was held that while maintenance has not been defined in the Act nor it is specified as to whose duty amongst the parents it is to maintain the children. Under 18 of the Women Maintenance Act the wife should be entitled to maintain during the lifetime. This is of course subject to the conditions. In fact it is the duty of both parents to maintain the child. The maintenance of wife in the present case is concerned Mrs. Rao submitted that the Respondent had deserted the Petitioner and left matrimonial home on her own. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance. She relied upon aforesaid judgment and contended that the Supreme Court observed that if the Respondent wife had left the matrimonial home on her own and he was not compelled by the Petitioner to leave matrimonial home nor had he threatened with direct consequences if she did not leave the house she was not entitled for maintenance. In the case of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao Vs. G. Jabilli, (2002) 2 SCC 296 it was held that cruelty cannot be judged by solitary incident but the Court has to come to conclusion whether various acts were committed by either party amounting to cruelty. Furthermore, the Court observed in paragraph 12 in the said judgment that due regard must be to marriage and the Court should consider whether life together with the Respondent had become impossible, then and only then can the Court come to a finding that there is cruelty on the part of the Respondent. All relevant circumstances must be considered. 87. The Supreme Court in case of G.V.N. Kameswara (supra) the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. All relevant circumstances must be considered. 87. The Supreme Court in case of G.V.N. Kameswara (supra) the Supreme Court observed as follows: "The mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must be had to the context in which they were made." 88. Mrs. Rao thereafter referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Sriniwas v. K. Sunita wherein the Supreme Court observed that filing of criminal complaint is sufficient to constitute mental cruelty. Mrs. Rao submitted that in the instant case Respondent had filed criminal complaint. The complaint came to be filed on or about 2002 and was withdrawn. Mrs. Rao submitted that it was only pressure tactics to get the Petitioner to succumb to her demands since arrest warrants against the Petitioner's parents has been issued. As a result of which the Petitioner's parents were required to get anticipatory bail. 89. Mrs. Rao further submitted that the filing of the criminal complaint was only by way of strategy since it is an admitted position that the complaint was filed after the summons of the Petition in the Family Court was served. As a result of which the Petitioner's parents were required to get anticipatory bail. 89. Mrs. Rao further submitted that the filing of the criminal complaint was only by way of strategy since it is an admitted position that the complaint was filed after the summons of the Petition in the Family Court was served. He pointed out that the Roznama of the Family Court shows that the Respondent had received the summons on 2nd February, 2002. According to the Respondent, however, the summons were received on 18th March, 2000. However, after receipt of the summons, the Respondent had adopted a different strategy for instance she sent a letter Exhibit 112 dated 7th May, 2002. In this letter the Respondent referred to the fact that while the Petitioner was at Lagos and the daughter and she were at the NCPA flat. The tone of the letter reveal that it was intended to create evidence. The emphasis was that the dispute between them had an impact on the child. According to Mrs. Rao this letter was written after receipt of the summons and hence a deliberate attempt to show the respondent's apparent concern for the daughter. She, then, referred to a SMS sent by the Respondent to the Petitioner. The said SMS shall stated as follows:-- "CHEERS HAPPY NEW YEAR 01/01/02 9:37 Vinita CHEERS HAPPY NEW YEAR 01/01/02 01:18 Vinita Anil Why are you not talking to me. I need to talk. 08/01/02 11:02 Vinita Please reply Anil. I am sori. Luv your wife Vinita 08/01/02 12:55 Vinita I am still awaiting your reply 08/01/02 13:18 Vinita Anil please do not hang up the phone on me. Have a heart. 12/02/02 19:54 Vinita I miss you a lot. Please do not be so angry with me. I am very sori. Happy valentine to u. 12/02/02 21:12 Vinita y dear anil happy valentine day to you luv always your wife vinita have a nice day. I love you 14/02/02 08:49 Vinita thank u 4 being a nice papa. 20/02/02 10:48 Vinita ANIL WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP HANGING UP THE PHONE ON ME 21/02/02 23:29 Vinita dear anil. Happy valentine to u. 12/02/02 21:12 Vinita y dear anil happy valentine day to you luv always your wife vinita have a nice day. I love you 14/02/02 08:49 Vinita thank u 4 being a nice papa. 20/02/02 10:48 Vinita ANIL WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP HANGING UP THE PHONE ON ME 21/02/02 23:29 Vinita dear anil. Miss u a lot I want everything to work out bet us I luv u very much 10/03/02 02:10 Vinita miss you a lot longing to be back with you again luv your wife vinita 13/03/02 22:57 Vinita anil don't u miss me at all? I know u luv. 13/03/02 23:04 Vinita happy birthday to my dear darling Anil luy u a lot 08/04/02 22:23 Vinita I could never tell you how much I love you because I luv u so much Vinita" 90. She sent a series of short text messages from her mobile phone expressing concern for him and, therefore, relationship. According to Mrs. Rao the fact that the Respondent was going out of her way to create evidence of a happy relationship between them his evidence at Exhibit-126 by which the Respondent had send a greeting card to the Petitioner. She demonstrated her feelings for him. This was sent on 9th April, 2002 on the occasion of the Petitioner's birthday, merely to create an impression that she was favourably disposed towards him. Mrs. Rao then, referred to a greeting card sent on Valentines day on 14th February, 2000. (We may also note here that on page 147 part of Exhibit-126 collectively there is also a Valentine's day card sent by the Respondent to the Petitioner on 14th February, 2000) which was prior to this summons being served but during the course of the acrimonious relationship between them. By making reference to these, Mrs. Rao submitted that it is clear that Greeting card and sms were sent during a period between November 2001 and 5th June 2002 during which period she was admittedly residing with her parents at the NCPA flat acquired by her parents sometime during 1998-99. Mrs. Rao, therefore, submitted that the fact that her conduct was cruel is clear from the fact that over six months period she had sent the SMS and Greeting card merely to create an impression that she was a loving wife and to prove the Petitioner as the wrong doer. Mrs. Rao, therefore, submitted that the fact that her conduct was cruel is clear from the fact that over six months period she had sent the SMS and Greeting card merely to create an impression that she was a loving wife and to prove the Petitioner as the wrong doer. Interestingly, in her cross examination in paragraph 43 the Respondent herself has admitted that she has made no official efforts for obtaining custody of her daughter from November 2001 till March 2002 and, therefore, she was meeting her at the child's school from January 2002. In these circumstances, according to Mrs. Rao the evidence of the Respondent is not believable and the Respondent had deliberately sought to make out a case faulting the Petitioner. 91. On the aspect of maintenance, Mrs. Rao submitted that the Respondent was self sufficient wealthy and financially independent. She had deliberately suppressed her assets and the income what she does from the family businesses. The fact that she was a Director and shareholder in various companies as stated above, which companies have substantially stakes in each other. Mrs. Rao further submitted that the claim for maintenance ought not to have been allowed in the first place, much less liable to be enhanced. According to her, no case whatsoever was made out by the Respondent to seek enhancement of the maintenance granted by the Family Court. She submitted that the Petitioner had paid all amounts and maintenance as per the order of the Family Court and regularly. She further submitted that as far as her daughter is concerned apart from the maintenance, the Petitioner had also paid the school fees for the IB School at Bangalore totaling Rs. 14,33,950/- between 9th September, 2010 and 6th April, 2012. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent the daughter is presently studying in London since 2012. She has stated that she has instructions from her client to submit to the order of this Court as far as sharing the cost of the education of the daughter is concerned. 92. Mrs. Rao, then, referred to the decision of a Division Bench, Nagpur Bench of this Court being First Appeal No. 1194 of 2009 Shiv Kumar Singh Dagdusingh Thakur v. Smt. Malti w/o Shivkumar Singh Dagdusingh Thakur dated 29th April, 2011. 92. Mrs. Rao, then, referred to the decision of a Division Bench, Nagpur Bench of this Court being First Appeal No. 1194 of 2009 Shiv Kumar Singh Dagdusingh Thakur v. Smt. Malti w/o Shivkumar Singh Dagdusingh Thakur dated 29th April, 2011. In this case, the Division Bench held that, "the husband must maintain the wife as provided under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The quantum of maintenance would depend upon the circumstances and the provisions under section 23 of the said Act subject to the discretion of the Court having due regard to the consideration as set out in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Maintenance Act. This Court further held that Hindu wife's first duty towards husband is to submit herself obediently to his authority and to remain under his roof and protection, her entitlement to separate residence or maintenance has not been completely ruled out and it is permissible for a Hindu wife to stay separate and claim maintenance from her husband. Section 18(3) also provides a circumstances under which a wife is not entitled to separate maintenance from her husband if she is unchaste etc. but these are not relevant to our facts. Mrs. Rao relied upon the observations in that matter that the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the amount of maintenance ordinarily includes cost of shelter, house, food, clothing, medical attention etc. It is relevant according to Mrs. Rao and not only that the wife has suppressed her income and assets but has deliberately failed and neglected to providing answers to questions about the same. These particulars being within the special knowledge of the Petitioner, she submitted that as the husband had adequately provided for education of the daughter, there is no justification for seeking maintenance and the claim for maintenance as set out in paragraph 18 of the judgment in Shivkumar Singh's case (supra) could be justified only where there is a refusal on the part of the husband to maintain her thereby causing her to live separately. Mrs. Rao submitted that in view of judgment of Shivkumar Singh (supra) there was no case made out for granting maintenance. Mrs. Rao submitted that applying the said test there is no doubt that the Respondent has chosen to walk out of the Petitioner's life and stay separately. Mrs. Rao submitted that in view of judgment of Shivkumar Singh (supra) there was no case made out for granting maintenance. Mrs. Rao submitted that applying the said test there is no doubt that the Respondent has chosen to walk out of the Petitioner's life and stay separately. The Petitioner has not asked her to leave and, therefore, there is no justification in the Family Court awarding maintenance. Equally, there is no case whatsoever for enhancement. According to Mrs. Rao, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate that she was completely dependent on her father and, therefore, it required to be paid maintenance by the Petitioner. The evidence admittedly points out towards the Respondent having income and having business interest which were more than substantial. According to Mrs. Rao the Respondent has also failed to establish that she is required to incur the medical expenses. There is no justification of allowing the order of the maintenance of the Respondent. Mrs. Rao has submitted that in the background of these facts and in the light of her obvious lack of concern for the marital relationship and family life and the complaint filed under section 498 of IPC before the Magistrate Courts, there is no justification whatsoever in awarding maintenance. She, therefore, submitted that the claim for maintenance is liable to be denied. 93. In particular Mrs. Rao submitted that much is sought to be made out by the parents of the Petitioner and his income. However, there is a matter of record that his business suffered huge losses and the profits that would generate after 1998 were in fact eaten away by the losses of the previous years. Despite all of this comfortable life to the Respondent and the daughter he has denied that he spent more than 1,50,000/- on holidays for the family. The Petitioner has deposed in paragraph 25 of the evidence that the some US $ 53692.51 was from his savings during the period 1982-89 and also the money received pursuant to the dissolution of the partnership business with his brother. He submitted that amount of around US $ 50,000/- was transferred from Oman Bank in Mumbai to American Express Bank and thereafter to the O.C.B.C. Bank. She also submitted that the US $ 2,44,834/- was pertaining to business transactions. He submitted that amount of around US $ 50,000/- was transferred from Oman Bank in Mumbai to American Express Bank and thereafter to the O.C.B.C. Bank. She also submitted that the US $ 2,44,834/- was pertaining to business transactions. The company could not open the bank account since Indian suppliers were not accepting the letter of credit of a Nigerian Bank and, therefore, he had used his Nostro account with Chemical Bank in New York and funds were transferred to Oman Bank and through Chemical Bank. His brother-in-law Amit Mahajan was appointed by the company Anivin Nigeria Ltd. to inspect the goods against payment of commission. She further submitted that the various cross entries in the accounts with Bank of Baroda pertaining to the flat in Sanjeev Enclave. In fact, these were borrowed funds and flat was purchased by the Petitioner's parents. Mrs. Rao submitted that these had no bearing to the issue at hand since the flat had already been disposed of in June 1998. Later on Mrs. Rao pointed out that other entries in the bank account pertain to interest received from UTI bonds and the amount of Rs. 10,75,000/- received from the sale proceeds of the Sanjeev Enclave flat. These transactions were carried out by the Petitioner's father who held up a power of attorney. The other amounts in the Bank of Baroda have also been explained by the Petitioner including Bank of Baroda and UTI. He had explained most of the credit and debits which were called by the counsel for the Respondent in particular. Mrs. Rao submitted that the Petitioner had clarified that the car was purchased for Rs. 6,32,093/-. Various other amounts amounting to Rs. 7,49,69,003.35 which had passed through the Oman Bank Account between June 1994 to June 1998 were all business related transactions, representing the cost of goods and freight. He also given a calculation on the share holding of Anivin Nigeria Ltd. and he admitted having paid Naira 3 lakhs for purchase shares of Anivin Nigeria Ltd. 94. In this manner, Mrs. Rao canvassed that the Petitioners income was not as high as was sought to be made out. Mrs. Rao reiterated that this court in the case of Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale v. Khristina w/o Sanjay Bhosale and held that where there is no proof of cruelty being meted out to the wife, she was not entitled to maintenance. Rao canvassed that the Petitioners income was not as high as was sought to be made out. Mrs. Rao reiterated that this court in the case of Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale v. Khristina w/o Sanjay Bhosale and held that where there is no proof of cruelty being meted out to the wife, she was not entitled to maintenance. In fact, in that case the wife had alleged cruel treatment at the hands of the husband and his relatives after six months of marriage. There was no evidence of cruelty. This Hon'ble Court has held that the wife was guilty of desertion without any reason. Mrs. Rao, then, referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Poonam v. Mahinder which reiterated earlier decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohtash Singh Vs. Smt. Ramendri and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 180 wherein it is held by the Apex Court that a wife is guilty of desertion, she was not entitled to any maintenance. Mrs. Rao also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Srinivas v. K. Sunita wherein the Court held that if a false criminal complaint is preferred by either spouse, it would invariably and indubitably constitute matrimonial cruelty, would entitle the other spouse to claim a divorce. In Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder in which case the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the case arising out of a criminal complaint under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and an application for maintenance filed by the Petitioner which contained allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty by the husband and which were not supported by the evidence, it was found in the case that the reasons given for alleged ill treatment were non-existent and the wife left the matrimonial home without any justifiable grounds. In that situation, the Supreme Court held that the Respondent was not entitled to maintenance. Thus, relying on these decisions, Mrs. Rao submitted that the Appeal is liable to be allowed to the extent that the order of the Family Court granting maintenance is liable to be set aside while maintaining the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS 95. Mr. Thus, relying on these decisions, Mrs. Rao submitted that the Appeal is liable to be allowed to the extent that the order of the Family Court granting maintenance is liable to be set aside while maintaining the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS 95. Mr. Narula, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondent-wife submitted that five issues have been raised on behalf of the Petitioner-husband, namely, (a) shares holding by the remuneration received by the Respondent as director (b) investments and other assets which were not disclosed (c) deposits in ICICI Bank accounts and its entitlement to maintenance on account of desertion. Mr. Narula submitted that case of desertion had never been pleaded by the Petitioner. According to Mr. Narula it is undisputed that the Petitioner and the Respondent stayed in Lagos upto year 2000 and came back to India in February 2000. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner had failed to establish that the Respondent was qualified to take up employment. He further submitted that the Petitioner had failed to lead any evidence as her eligibility to take up the employment. Further more, he submitted that no questions were asked as to the source of income. Mr. Narula submitted that after the marriage was solemnized on 19th May, 1993 they were been living separately since 3rd November, 2000 daughter was born on 13th April, 1994 and she had now become a major. Mr. Narula submitted that in between 1994-98 there were no major instances or the dispute arises. The Petitioner abruptly seeking separation then confronted the Respondent with a petition under section 13(1)(a). According to Mr. Narula the couple were happily married and the allegations of cruelty being made are non issues. Such contention would not entitle the Petitioner to divorce on the ground of cruelty. Thus, the family court is mistaken in its order granting divorce. According to Mr. Narula the entire attempt on the part of the Petitioner is to discredit the Respondents by making that allegations against the Respondent. He submits that the Respondent was treated badly by the Petitioner and his family members and she was unable to bare the continuous assault by the Petitioner. According to Mr. Narula the entire attempt on the part of the Petitioner is to discredit the Respondents by making that allegations against the Respondent. He submits that the Respondent was treated badly by the Petitioner and his family members and she was unable to bare the continuous assault by the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner's mother took up quarrels with the Respondent frequently and in this respect he made reference to paragraph 6 of the affidavit of evidence of Respondent page 291 of the paper book of evidence wherein the Respondent has stated that the Petitioner's mother took up quarrels with the Respondent and started taunting her parents had not given sufficient wedding gifts to her and the Petitioner. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner had abused the Respondent in filthy language and also insulted and ridiculed her although she was six months pregnant at that time. She also abuses the Petitioner of beating her during her stay during the months of February to April 1994. In this respect, reference is made to paragraph 7 and 8 of her deposition. Mr. Narula then, pointed out that in paragraph 13 of the deposition the Respondent had stated that there were frequent quarrels and assaults by the Petitioner as a result of which she assaulted on her face and back. The mother of the Petitioner would instigate the Petitioner against the Respondent and her parents. Making further reference to the ill treatment of the Respondent, Mr. Narula referred to paragraph 17 of her affidavit in lieu of evidence wherein she had deposed that she had developed a fear complex feeling insecure and confined to her father that she was very much afraid to go back to Lagos. She has alleged that there was a game plan hatched by the Petitioner and his parents and that she would not stay at the matrimonial home. On one occasion the Petitioner's parents made up an excuse to bringing her for staying in the matrimonial house by contending that the Petitioner's brother's wife is also staying at their flat in Iris Mumbai and that she had come there for her delivery. In this manner, she was led to believe so and went at fathers place but without her daughter. She continued to stay at Iris. She also alleged that she developed a serious hypothyroid which had been cancerous. In this manner, she was led to believe so and went at fathers place but without her daughter. She continued to stay at Iris. She also alleged that she developed a serious hypothyroid which had been cancerous. She stated that the Petitioner would not pay any money for her medical treatment. She had to use her own monies for medical treatment and had to withdraw $ 52500/- lying in the OCBC Bank Singapore. She further deposed that she spent the monies that she withdrew on her medical expenses and for her daughter Ayesha and the Petitioner as well. Mr. Narula drew our attention to the fact that the Petitioner's took away his daughter Ayesha to Lagos without informing the Respondent and prevented the Respondent from talking to the daughter. He referred to paragraph 23 and 24 of her evidence where she deposed that she suffered damage to her spinal cord as a result of assault and torture by her in-laws and the Petitioner. According to her she was unable to tolerate it any further and she lodged a complaint on 3rd November, 2001. As a counter-blast, the Petitioner's parents did not allow her to enter the matrimonial home at Iris, Cuffe Parade. These aspects according to the learned counsel for Respondent had not been challenged in cross examination. 96. Mr. Narula further submitted in paragraph 19 of the evidence of Murli Lekhraj, father of the Respondent, it is clearly stated that the Respondent was being beaten by the Appellant and his parents. As a result of which he, father of the Respondent was forced to go to the house of the Petitioner. Narrating the events, he stated that on 2nd November, 2001 the Respondent's father received a call from his daughter the Respondent around 9.45 p.m. He has deposed that his daughter informed him that the Petitioner and his parents were beating her. The Respondent's father rushed to the matrimonial home by around 10 p.m. and only to face a very messy situation. The Petitioner was beating the Respondent in the presence of all. He further deposed that when he tried to stop the Petitioner, he pushed him and the Petitioner's parents were hiding behind their bed room door and were throwing glass plates at the Respondents; father. This continued till midnight. The Petitioner was beating the Respondent in the presence of all. He further deposed that when he tried to stop the Petitioner, he pushed him and the Petitioner's parents were hiding behind their bed room door and were throwing glass plates at the Respondents; father. This continued till midnight. During this period the Petitioner did not allow the Respondent to take her belongings from the cupboard nor did he allowed the Respondent's father to take their daughter along with the Respondent. Mr. Narula submitted that there was absolutely no cross examination on this aspect. He therefore submitted that those contentions that his client was subjected to physical and mental abuse must be accepted. 97. He submitted that the Respondent has no income. Referring to paragraph 35 of the evidence, he submitted that all the companies referred to were belonging to the Respondent's father and she has no knowledge about the companies and all the accounts were maintained by him including the filing of the returns etc. According to her, she is unaware particularly the business of Sanwa Finance and of the ICICI bank account she had jointly with her father. She states that she has received no remuneration. Mr. Narula, then, made reference to paragraph 40 of the evidence page 325 of the paper book of evidence that the Respondent has transferred US $ 52,500/- to her father's account i.e. Saniva International (Pte)Ltd. He, then, made reference to paragraph 49 of the evidence at page 340 wherein she deposed that the amount shown as Directors remuneration balance sheet had not received by her. Further reference is made to paragraph 54 of her deposition in cross examination to state that her father uses her name in his business and she was a nominee director in Sanwa Finance Ltd. and Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. without drawing any salary. She made reference to Exhibit 122 to say that her father controlled all the businesses. According to Mr. Narula, the Respondent resigned from the various companies and gifted the shares to her sister Varsha as per the instructions of her father. He submitted that the witness had deposed in cross examination that she had not transferred the shares in the name of the daughter because her shares do not belong to Respondent's father. She states that all these companies accounts were handled by the accountant and his father. He submitted that the witness had deposed in cross examination that she had not transferred the shares in the name of the daughter because her shares do not belong to Respondent's father. She states that all these companies accounts were handled by the accountant and his father. She claimed that she was a dummy director and she did not know the purpose behind using her name in her father businesses. Mr. Narula, then, made reference to the evidence of Mr. Murli Lekhraj paragraph 24 page 443 of paper book, wherein he has stated that the Respondent does not have any separate income nor she has any connection with companies. This statement was duly confirmed by the Auditor's Report and as an admitted position the Respondent was not a director in any of the companies nor was she shareholder. Mr. Narula, then, was at pains to support this contention and took us through the evidence highlighting material facts pertaining to each of the businesses. 98. With reference to Sanwa Finance Company Ltd. he submitted that the Respondent had held 610 preferential shares. His preferential shares were redeemed on 19th January, 2000. According to the evidence of the Respondent, the Respondent is not a shareholder in Sanwa Finance Company Ltd. He referred to Exhibit 166 and submitted that on perusal of the statement showed that the Respondent did not hold any shares in any of the companies. 99. On the other hand, Exhibit 166 shows that the shares of Horizon Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Sanwa Capitals Pvt. Ltd., Balmoral Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Vanita Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Lekhraj and Sons (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., Jayem Fashions Ltd. all were sold on 9th April, 2001 whereas shares of Jayem Fashions Ltd. were sold on 30th April, 2001 and shares of Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. were sold on 30th April, 2002. He submitted that she does not held any share in any company and she had gifted and sold to Varsha and some of the companies are under liquidation. According to Mr. Narula, the Respondent received only the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as result of redemption of shares on 15th November, 2001. He referred to the ICICI Bank statement at Exhibit 172 of paper book which is at page 751 which reveals that sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- were cleared on 15th November, 2001. (In our view there is nothing to suggest that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- as result of redemption of shares on 15th November, 2001. He referred to the ICICI Bank statement at Exhibit 172 of paper book which is at page 751 which reveals that sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- were cleared on 15th November, 2001. (In our view there is nothing to suggest that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was received as a result of redemption of shares.) 100. With reference to Palmar Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Narula submitted that the Respondent was having 650 preferential shares which were redeemed on 20th November, 2001. He referred to Exhibit 172 at page 751 to demonstrate that the sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- was received from the aforesaid redemption. It may be pertinent to mention here that Palmar Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. is the company which owns the two residential flats in Mumbai at NCPA and Blue Heaven. Mr. Narula, then, referred to the company Jayem Exports and stated that the Respondent held 750 shares in Jayem Exports which were sold in two branches on 27th December, 2001 and 29th March, 2001. He, then, made reference to Exhibit 170 which showed that it received a consideration for 300 shares. [there is nothing to show that the amount deposited in the ICICI bank account jointly held by Respondent and his father was consideration for 300 shares. While on the subject, the said bank statement at page 724 also shows that sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid to Palmar Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 28th December, 2001. This entry has not been explained by the Respondent. Similarly the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid to Palmar Investments on 27th February, 2003, [This entry is also not explained.] 101. Mr. Narula, then, made reference to Sanwa Finance and stated that the Respondent held 18 shares in financial year 2000-01 and sold them to Varsha her sister. Similarly, shares of the Respondent in Vanita Fashions and other companies were indicated as seen from Exhibit 159 resulting in the capital account of the Appellants showing only amount invested in those years to the tune of Rs. 1,341,770/-, Rs. 49,100/- towards PPF investment in jewellery and ornaments amounting to Rs. 1,035,050/-. Incidentally, the balance sheet also shows loan and advances to Vanita Trust amounting to Rs. 305,000/- as of 31st March, 2004. Mr. 1,341,770/-, Rs. 49,100/- towards PPF investment in jewellery and ornaments amounting to Rs. 1,035,050/-. Incidentally, the balance sheet also shows loan and advances to Vanita Trust amounting to Rs. 305,000/- as of 31st March, 2004. Mr. Narula, then, attempted to demonstrate that his client, the Respondent was not a person of means. She was without any income of her own is required to bring up her daughter Ayesha and she only has her father to support her. He, therefore, submitted that the Respondent was entitled to maintenance commensurate with the life style she had come to expect inasmuch as the Petitioner's lifestyle was luxurious. He had, at Lagos, two cooks, three maid, two cars, had shopped for furniture in London, huge amounts of money passed through his accounts. The holidays in Europe and America and had established a lifestyle which this Petitioner was bound to prove to the Respondent. He therefore submitted that she was entitled to enhancement in the amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court. He submitted that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. each awarded by the Family Court was insufficient. In the facts and circumstances, she was entitled to enhanced maintenance According to him, she requires at least Rs. 1,50,000/- p.m. for herself and her daughter. She has been also entitled to separate residence. 102. Mr. Narula relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata and Others, (2002) 5 SCC 422 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under section 125 read with section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a major daughter is entitled for maintenance till her marriage. The Supreme Court observed that in that case it was manifest that the minor girl's right for maintenance till attaining majority and till her marriage is recognised in section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and, therefore, no exception can be made. Mr. Narula submitted that in the present case as well, the daughter is also entitled to maintenance till her marriage. 103. Mr. Narula then, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Mr. Narula submitted that in the present case as well, the daughter is also entitled to maintenance till her marriage. 103. Mr. Narula then, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 and harped on the fact that the Petitioner has stated that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, although it is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said provision had found recognition in the judgment of Naveen Kohli (supra). He submitted that the Apex Court had observed that the parties were facing genuine problems and the dissolution of marriage was in the interest of the society and recommended to the Union of India to seriously consider an amendment to facilitate dissolution on the ground of irretrievable break down. Mr. Narula submitted that in the instant case, the marriage was broken down irretrievably. He then made reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326 and submitted that the Petitioner had treated the Respondent with cruelty and in any event, the Petitioner is bound to maintain the Respondent and her daughter. 104. Mr. Narula then made reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Rachana Oswald Malhotra/D'Silva Vs. Oswald Fredrick D'Silva alias Amar of Mumbai, (2014) 3 ALLMR 285 to which one of us (A.S. Oka, J.) was a party. The facts of that case reveals that the husband had significant financial ability and the wife filed for enhancement of the maintenance he issue in the said appeal was that of enhancement of maintenance as it is in the present case. The Court came to the conclusion that the Appellant had established and demonstrated from the record and proceedings that the Respondent had far more than substantial financial assistance and this Court had after considering the facts of the case, enhanced and determined an increase from Rs. 7,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim measure and thereafter, at the disposal of the appeal, the Respondent therein was directed to pay the Appellant an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of that order. Mr. Narula submitted that the facts in the present case are similar. 7,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim measure and thereafter, at the disposal of the appeal, the Respondent therein was directed to pay the Appellant an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of that order. Mr. Narula submitted that the facts in the present case are similar. The Petitioner has not disclosed his correct income and the Respondent was entitled to enhancement of the maintenance. 105. Mr. Narula, then, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishwanath Agarwal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agarwal and submitted that cruelty has an separable nexus with human conduct and is always dependent on social strata. He referred to paragraph 72 of the said judgment in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that these earlier decisions in the matter of Parveen Mehta v. Indrajeet Mehta which held that mental cruelty in the state of mind and cannot be established by direct evidence. It is necessary and matter of interference to be drawn from circumstances. He further submitted that in the matrimonial dispute any outsider to come and to depose family members, relatives and friends are the most natural witnesses in the veracity of their testimony is to be decided on objective parameters and not to be over bold on the ground that the witnesses are related to the spouse. He, therefore, contended that the evidence on behalf, the Respondent wife can by her and the supporting evidence of her father Murli Lekhraj are of immense relevance and is reliable. He further submitted that while granting maintenance due regard has to be shown to other ancillary aspects. He submitted that the Respondent is entitled to maintain a standard of living. Accordingly, he submitted that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- granted by the trial Court will be wholly insufficient considering the fact that the lifestyle of the Respondent has been used to living along with the Petitioner. He referred to the evidence lead in this behalf and submitted that there is a strong case for increasing the amount of maintenance granted. CONCLUSIONS 106. Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and having given an anxious thoughts to the dispute, the evidence led, we are of the view that the impugned orders do not call for any interference. CONCLUSIONS 106. Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and having given an anxious thoughts to the dispute, the evidence led, we are of the view that the impugned orders do not call for any interference. The Family Court Appeal No. 105/2008 has been filed by the Respondent-wife challenging the grant of divorce dated 19th May, 1993 and the quantum of maintenance awarded. On the other hand, the Family Court Appeal No. 128/2008 has been filed by the Petitioner husband essentially challenging the grant of maintenance per se on the basis that it is inconsistent with the evidence adduced by the parties. The Family Court framed the following issues:-- 107. The issue pertaining to cruelty was decided in favour of the Petitioner. It was held that the Respondent had treated the Petitioner with cruelty and, therefore, he was entitled to a decree of divorce. Apropos custody, the Court decided against the Petitioner husband holding that he is not entitled to custody of the child. The Court also and also held in favour of the Respondent wife to the extent it concerned maintenance for the Respondent and the child. In arriving at affirmative finding on issue No. 1 viz. the Petitioner having been treated with cruelty, the trial court recorded that although the Respondent wife herself had made various allegations of being treated with cruelty, she had failed to establish the same. The trial Court found that even the Respondent's father had not made any allegations against the Petitioner and his family till the matrimonial petition was filed by the Petitioner. On the contrary, the Court concluded that the Petitioner had proved his case that the Respondent wife treated him with cruelty. 108. On the aspect of divorce, we have perused the pleadings in Family Court Petition No. 264/2002. The Petitioner's allegations of cruelty have been summarized by us in paragraph 4 of this judgment. However, at the cost of repetition, we recapitulate the essence of the allegations. It is the Petitioner's case that after the child is born, the Respondent turn arrogant, abusive and defiant. She used foul language against the Petitioner. The Respondent's mother who was present the police station when the Petitioner was summoned abused the Petitioner and called him impotent in the presence of all concerned thus treating him with cruelty. It is the Petitioner's case that after the child is born, the Respondent turn arrogant, abusive and defiant. She used foul language against the Petitioner. The Respondent's mother who was present the police station when the Petitioner was summoned abused the Petitioner and called him impotent in the presence of all concerned thus treating him with cruelty. According to the Petitioner, he was called on several times to the police station and humiliated. The constant threats of filing criminal complaints against the Petitioner's parents allegedly for demanding dowry caused mental stress and cruelty to the Petitioner. The Respondent has turned violent at times throwing various items including glass articles at the Petitioner. She and the daughter refused to travel London at the request of the Petitioner and used non availability of a visa for the daughter as an excuse. 109. The Petitioner has also deposed to the fact that his sister was also abused by the Respondent without provocation. Apart from the physical harm to his parents, he has deposed that false cases were filed against his parents and him under section 498 of the IPC. After registering the case against the Petitioner and his parents, the parents of the Petitioners had to take anticipatory bail. All this has caused enormous harassment, amounting to cruelty. Ultimately, the Petitioner's mother had to file a suit against the Petitioner and Respondent restraining them from entering the Petitioner's mother's flat which had served as the matrimonial home. In August, 1997 when the Petitioner's sister gave birth to a son, the Respondent accused the Petitioner of being the father of the child. Furthermore, she attributed to him, falsely, a statement by which the Petitioner is alleged to have remarked that the Respondent's father was the father of the Respondent's child. These are very serious and grave allegations. 110. On the other hand, the Respondent has not been able to dislodge the veracity of the Petitioner's evidence on these aspects. It is also established that the allegations made without any basis which can be seen from the fact that the Respondent has not cross-examined the Petitioner on these aspects of his deposition. The Petitioner has been cross examined extensively but the Respondent has not been able to make any dent to his evidence on the aspect of cruelty. It is also established that the allegations made without any basis which can be seen from the fact that the Respondent has not cross-examined the Petitioner on these aspects of his deposition. The Petitioner has been cross examined extensively but the Respondent has not been able to make any dent to his evidence on the aspect of cruelty. The Petitioner has also deposed to the instance of the Respondent's failure to go to Lagos to attend to the daughter who was suffering from Chickenpox and considering the tender age of the child such acts of insensitivity are cited as instance of cruelty. 111. The Respondent's lack of honesty is also apparent in the manner in which she dealt with the joint account in OCBC bank, Singapore. After withdrawing the amount, admittedly without the consent of the Petitioner, she contended that the amounts withdrawn was her money. She was ably assisted by her father who also contended that the money was her own, comprising of gifts received by her. She then contended that the amount was withdrawn in order to fund her medical treatment. She has deposed that she was suffering from Hypothyroid condition and that she required treatment but the Petitioner had refused to give money for her medical treatment. She, therefore, withdrew the said money, which according to her was her own. However, in the evidence of the Respondent and her father, it has come to light that the money was never really used by her for medical treatment but she has transferred the money to her father's company account. This was also brought out in the cross-examination of the father. In her cross-examination, she admitted that money withdrawn from the joint account was not used but she borrowed money from her father. She also deposed that Rs. 60,000/- had been paid for treatment of thyroid. She admitted that that she was not hospitalised for the thyroid condition nor has she undergone any surgery treatment. In this view of the matter, it is clear that she has made incorrect statement and the same are misleading. 112. It is also the Respondent's own case that the matrimonial relations were not peaceful. According to her, the Petitioner had treated her with cruelty and physically abused her and has constantly humiliated her despite her being in pregnant state. The Respondent also deposed that the Petitioner regularly assaulted her. 112. It is also the Respondent's own case that the matrimonial relations were not peaceful. According to her, the Petitioner had treated her with cruelty and physically abused her and has constantly humiliated her despite her being in pregnant state. The Respondent also deposed that the Petitioner regularly assaulted her. The Petitioner's mother also deposed that the Petitioner was very harsh with her, insulting her, scolding her as a result of which her suffered especially during her pregnancy. As a result of the cruel treatment, she had to undergo labour over four days. Even after the child was born, the Petitioner treated her in extremely cruel manner. She feared and was afraid of going back to the Petitioner and she has developed a fear complex. The Respondent has deposed that till 2001, daily life was a torturous, physical and mental. According to her, on 2nd November 2001 after the Petitioner started quarrelling with her, both the parents in law joined the Petitioner, in beating the Respondent who were septuagenarians. (70). We find it difficult to believe their statements. In this view of the matter, we do not see how the Respondent can sustain any challenge to a decree of divorce and in our view, the decree of divorce needs to be upheld. 113. Mental cruelty has not been defined in the Act. Although the same is a ground for a grant of divorce. In the present case, there has been separation over a long period of time and given the fact situation, we are of the view that the trial Court had correctly come to a finding that the Respondent wife has treated the Petitioner-husband with mental cruelty. One of the leading case on the issue is of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 . In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-- "99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty." The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wrong party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree and it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the marriage life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of year will not amount to cruelty. The conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have a child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows, scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows, scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. " 114. The Respondent also filed a case under section 498A of IPC, which was found to be baseless. Attributing defamatory statements alluding to immoral nature of the Petitioner clearly indicates that the Respondent has treated the Petitioner with cruelty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 , while following the judgment of Samar Ghosh has also taken the view that defamatory statements by Respondent wife are bound to result in humiliation of the husband and result in the husband and his family members being subjected to mental cruelty. In that case, the Respondent in her complaint addressed to the Superintendent of Police alleged that the mother of the Appellant-husband asked her to sleep with his father which angered him and caused humiliation to the father and great anguish to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found this also to be one more instance of mental cruelty. It will be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 13, 21, 22, 24 and 26 as under:-- "13. In Naveen Kohli the wife had filed several complaints and cases against the husband. This Court viewed her conduct as a conduct causing mental cruelty and observed that the finding of the High Court that these proceedings could not be taken to be such which may warrant annulment of marriage is wholly unsustainable. 21. On 29/6/2010 Criminal Appeal No. 186/2010 filed by the Appellant-husband challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was allowed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and he was acquitted. The Respondent-wife has filed criminal appeal in the High Court challenging the said acquittal which is pending. 22. We need to now see the effect of the above events. In our opinion, the first instance of mental cruelty is seen in the scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statement made by the Respondent-wife in her complaint dated 4/10/1999 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell. 22. We need to now see the effect of the above events. In our opinion, the first instance of mental cruelty is seen in the scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory statement made by the Respondent-wife in her complaint dated 4/10/1999 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell. The statement that the mother of the Appellant-husband asked her to sleep with his father is bound to anger him. It is his case that this humiliation of his parents caused great anguish to him. He and his family were traumatized by the false and indecent statement made in the complaint. His grievance appears to us to be justified. This complaint is a part of the record. It is a part of the pleadings. That this statement is false is evident from the evidence of the mother of the Respondent-wife, which we have already quoted. This statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was made because the Respondent-wife was anxious to go back to the Appellant-husband. This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint the Respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the Appellant-husband. 24. In our opinion, the High Court wrongly held that because the Appellant-husband and the Respondent-wife did not stay together there is no question of the parties causing cruelty to each other. Staying together under the same roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable. This is what has happened in this case. 26. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree." 115. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, we have no doubt that the observations of the Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao (supra) applied to the present case as well with equal force. Furthermore, this Court had occasion to consider whether an acquittal in a prosecution launched under section 498A of the IPC amounts to cruelty in the case of Mr. M Vs. Mrs. M, (2014) 2 ALLMR 750 to which one of us (A.S. Oka, J.) was a party. This Court has held that the Respondent wife had no substantiated her allegations of cruelty in the criminal case. 116. The Respondent has no objection for grant of a decree for divorce by consent. The Respondent wife has not seriously urged her appeal against the decree of divorce. Learned counsel for the Respondent does not make out any case for a relief against the decree of divorce. The main crux of the argument was on the issue of maintenance. The Respondent's case is that she has entirely dependent on her father and she is legally entitled to be maintained by the Petitioner. 117. The only ground that is being taken up in the petition is that a cruelty which brings us to that aspect of the matter and apart from the fact that the Petitioner has made various allegations of cruelties which were listed out above, in the written statement, we find that the Respondent has also contended that she has been treated with cruelty. The written statement has been filed on 5th March, 2005 after the petition came to be amended to seek divorce under section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act. The written statement has been filed on 5th March, 2005 after the petition came to be amended to seek divorce under section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act. Although the Petitioner has initially filed the petition for judicial separation. Apart from formal denials and the contentions of the Petitioner, the Respondent has admitted the factum of marriage, cohabitation on the birth of their daughter Ayesha. Cohabitation at Lagos is also admitted. The Respondent has also admitted that matrimonial home at Mumbai was the Petitioner's home at Iris, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. That whenever the Respondent came to India she would reside at the said matrimonial home. She has contended that even as on date of filing of written statement her clothes and jewellery were lying in the matrimonial home. In paragraph 15 of the written statement, the Respondent states that after the birth of their child Ayesha, the attitude of the Petitioner towards her changed and the Petitioner was like a puppet in the hands of his mother who is alleged to have been poisoned the mind of the Petitioner towards the Respondent. She complained harassment and ill treatment including physical assault by the Petitioner being instigated by his mother. The mother of the Petitioner started demanding that the Respondent's father should buy a flat in South Mumbai so that the Petitioner and Respondent would stay there separately especially after the birth of the child. The Respondent states that the Petitioner's attitude having changed as aforestated has developed a habit of physically assaulting the Respondent without any real reason. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner and her in-laws often stated that the Petitioner had married the Respondent in the hope that her parents would assist the Petitioner to set up business. These are the basic allegations which are believed to have caused the matrimonial dispute. The Respondent has also alleged that in September 2000 the Petitioner returned to India and he started harassing her and abusing her parents for not providing a flat. He threatened the Respondent to throw out of the matrimonial home and on several occasions tried to physically "drag the Respondent out of matrimonial home". Apparently these were the instances witnessed by the Petitioner's family. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner and her in-laws expected that she would bring handsome money and look after the in-laws in their old age. He threatened the Respondent to throw out of the matrimonial home and on several occasions tried to physically "drag the Respondent out of matrimonial home". Apparently these were the instances witnessed by the Petitioner's family. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner and her in-laws expected that she would bring handsome money and look after the in-laws in their old age. However, this marriage was not turning out to their expectations. These are some instances of cruelty. Despite this, she contends that she had expressed her immense desire to reconcile and reunite with the Petitioner for the betterment of the daughter Ayesha. She contended that she had written a letter on 16th January, 2002 expressing her willingness to unconditionally reunite. According to her, whenever the Petitioner and the Respondent and the daughter were staying separately such as at Lagos, there were no problems between them, however, the Petitioner's mother use to instigate him against her. 118. In paragraph 33 she contends that the petition is filed on 23rd January, 2002 for judicial separation without any fault on the part of the Respondent and it is the Petitioner's intention to desert the Respondent. She admits that on 13th April, 2002 she had lodged a detailed complaint against the Petitioner and her in-laws alleging harassment and ill treatment made by the Petitioner and in-laws to her. Further more, in paragraph 41 of the written statement, she contends that since the police has not taken cognizance of the complaints, the Respondent filed the complaint under section 498A that the Petitioner and her in-laws in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court at Mumbai, which issued process. She has also sought an order from the Court directing them to provide suitable accommodation in the same vicinity of South Mumbai and maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month to the Respondent and Rs. 25,000/- per month for daughter Ayesha. She has alleged that the Petitioner being a successful businessman and earning large amount and denied all the contentions in the Writ Petition. About the withdrawal of the monies from the joint bank account of OCBC Bank, Singapore, she contends that the money belongs to her. This, however, is untrue as we will see when we have deal with this aspect later on in the judgment. About the withdrawal of the monies from the joint bank account of OCBC Bank, Singapore, she contends that the money belongs to her. This, however, is untrue as we will see when we have deal with this aspect later on in the judgment. When juxtaposing the contentions in the written statement with those in the petition and upon analysing the evidence led by the parties, it becomes extremely clear that both parties have alleged cruelty against each other. What is interesting to note that she admits that the complaint under section 498A was filed only because the police failed to take any action. This complaint was thereafter dismissed. This conduct in filing the complaint even during the pendency of the matrimonial dispute in the Family Court speaks volumes of the Respondent's conduct. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the Petitioner and his parents were harassing the Respondent for dowry. It is also difficult to believe that the Petitioner's parents and the Petitioner expected that after the marriage the Respondent's father would help the Petitioner to settle in business. We say so because it is the Respondent's case that the Petitioner is doing extremely well in business and is living a life of luxury in Lagos, Nigeria. It is, this luxurious lifestyle that is being cited in the pleadings and in the evidence, in support of the Respondent's claim for maintenance. In evidence, Respondent states that they have taken several holidays abroad and they travelled regularly by business class. Several such instances have been cited in support of her contention that the Petitioner is living a life of luxury and, therefore, liable to pay maintenance to the Respondent and her daughter. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the Petitioner or his parents expected the Respondent's father to help in his business or settle him down in business. These contentions have been taken up only by way of a counter blast. On the other hand, the conduct of the Respondent and the parents on various aspects need to be noted. For instance, it is the Petitioner who has contended that the Respondent changed after the child was born on 13th April, 1994 that she became adamant and abusive and defiant soon thereafter. As against this, the Respondent also claims that after the birth of the child, the Petitioner became arrogant and abusive towards her. For instance, it is the Petitioner who has contended that the Respondent changed after the child was born on 13th April, 1994 that she became adamant and abusive and defiant soon thereafter. As against this, the Respondent also claims that after the birth of the child, the Petitioner became arrogant and abusive towards her. The Respondent's evidence lacks credibility on this aspect. There are very serious allegations of cruelty which have been brought out by the Petitioner in his evidence. For instance, in August 1997 when the Petitioner's sister Jyoti had given birth to her child, the Respondent is alleged to have accused the Petitioner of being the father of the said child. This evidence has not been seriously challenged by the Respondent. Time and again, the Petitioner has through his advocate's letters put on record the various instances of the Respondent's behaviour including one. When the Petitioner was called to attend the Cuffe Parade Police Station and the Respondent and her parents abused the Petitioner at the police station. The Respondent's mother is alleged to called the Petitioner impotent and stated that he should be sheltered under the frill of his mother. Further more instances the Respondent has falsely attributed to the Petitioner, his statement that the Respondent's father was the father of her child. This has been brought on record in the cross examination by the Advocate for the Petitioner. 119. In the evidence of the Petitioner's sister Jyoti, she has stated that she has witnessed the arguments between the Petitioner and the Respondent which revolved only around money. The evidence of the Petitioner's mother Mrs. Asha Kripalani also reveals that many of the altercations between husband and wife revolved around money. 120. In the present case, we cannot but help observe the manner in which the respondent-wife has behaved. She has filed a baseless criminal complaint under Section 498A of IPC at a time when the Petitioner was in Lagos. She has accused the mother-in-law of keeping the Respondent and daughter Ayesha hungry without giving them food and without permitting them to either bring food from outside. Making uncalled for allegations, she has indulged in character assassination of her husband when she attributed to the Petitioner-husband a statement that the Respondent's father was the father of the Respondent's daughter Ayesha. She has accused the mother-in-law of keeping the Respondent and daughter Ayesha hungry without giving them food and without permitting them to either bring food from outside. Making uncalled for allegations, she has indulged in character assassination of her husband when she attributed to the Petitioner-husband a statement that the Respondent's father was the father of the Respondent's daughter Ayesha. This was an extremely disparaging allegation to make notwithstanding that the Respondent may have been under some pressure. She has accused the Petitioner and his parents of making dowry demands which have remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, when the child Ayesha was still in Lagos, after suffering from chicken pox, the Respondent did not make any efforts to go over to Lagos. She even abused the petitioner's sister and made offensive comments about her having two children. In fact, the Respondent appears to have spared nobody in the Petitioner's family. Juxtaposed with this is the Respondent's behaviour after summons from the Court proceedings were served. Suddenly she started sending letters and SMS to the Petitioner feigning her love for him. Such conduct is unbecoming of a spouse. Applying the aforesaid tests to the present case and having considered the fact situation there is no doubt in our mind that the Respondent wife inflicted mental cruelty on the Petitioner husband, as a result of which made it impossible for the parties to live together. Equally, it cannot be said that the Petitioner may also behaved in a cruel manner. The Respondent has in our view failed to prove that the Petitioner has treated her with cruelty. The evidence is loaded against the Respondent. It is clear that the Petitioner cannot ask to put up with the conduct of the Respondent and continue to live with her. So, there is question of setting aside the decree of divorce. We are satisfied that the Petitioner has been subjected to mental cruelty over a period of time and the Respondent's indifferent and arrogant behaviour is unjustifiable. Married life as a whole was ruined and as seen from the evidence and it justifies the conclusion that we have reached. The marriage is, therefore, beyond repair. The relationship had deteriorated to such a great extent that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent any longer. 121. Married life as a whole was ruined and as seen from the evidence and it justifies the conclusion that we have reached. The marriage is, therefore, beyond repair. The relationship had deteriorated to such a great extent that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent any longer. 121. Thus, it is clear that frivolous allegations have been made against the Petitioner which in our view clearly amount to mental cruelty. The Respondent's attitude towards child also deserves a mention. The child Ayesha had developed chicken pox in and around December 1998. The Petitioner informed the Respondent who was then in India of this fact and expected that the Respondent would go to Nigeria to look after the child but she failed to do so. Sometime later the child was brought to India and after she recovered the Petitioner had expected that the Respondent will accompany him and the child to Lagos. However, the Respondent declined to go to Lagos and the Respondent's father threatened the Petitioner that he would be beaten up he attempted to take the child Ayesha to Lagos. In our view, the various aspects of cruelty are deposed by the Petitioner and his mother leave us in no manner of doubt that the Respondent has treated the Petitioner with cruelty. On behalf of the Respondent there has been no attempt to stave off the allegations of cruelty. The challenge to the decree of divorce in Family Court Appeal No. 105/2007 filed by the Respondent-wife must fail and apropos issue No. 2, we have already observed that the decree of divorce was justified and hence calls for no interference. 122. In our view the test for mental cruelty caused by the Respondent to the Petitioner stands satisfied and accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the decree of divorce. 123. We will now deal with the contentions made by Mr. Rao on the aspect of desertion. As regards the submission of Mrs. Rao that the Respondent-wife has deserted her husband although it is evident from the conduct of parties that she had lived separately for long period of time, we do not find any such case made out in the petition. Although it would be open for Mrs. Rao on the aspect of desertion. As regards the submission of Mrs. Rao that the Respondent-wife has deserted her husband although it is evident from the conduct of parties that she had lived separately for long period of time, we do not find any such case made out in the petition. Although it would be open for Mrs. Rao to contend that the Petitioner cannot be prevented from taking up new ground by virtue of provisions of Order 41, no application has been made to add additional grounds. Although, we have allowed her to make submission on this aspect, the contention that the Respondent-wife had deserted the Petitioner clearly seems to be an afterthought. Moreover, it is well settled that to sustain the plea of desertion, a party alleging desertion must not only prove that the other spouse was living separately but must also prove that there was animus deserendi on the spouse. We are fortified in taking this view by Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Ravi Kumar Vs. Julmi Devi, (2010) 4 SCC 476 in which the Supreme Court has held in para 13 as follows:-- "It may be noted that only after the amendment of the said Act by the amending Act 68 of 1976, desertion, the High Court held that in order to prove a case of desertion, the party alleging desertion must not only prove that the other spouse was living separately but must also prove that there is animus deserendi on the part of the wife and the husband must prove that he has not conducted himself in a way which furnishes reasonable cause for the wife to stay away from the matrimonial home." 124. In the present case, we find that no such animus deserendi or more or less there is no case of the Petitioner that the Respondent-wife had deserted him. The Petitioner originally prayed for judicial separation and thereafter, by way of an amendment divorce is sought on the ground of cruelty. In the facts of the present case, the submission of Mrs. Rao that the Respondent had deserted the Petitioner need not continue to engage our attention. Although the Respondent has in her written statement contended that the Petitioner had deserted her, no attempt is made to make it good. In the facts of the present case, the submission of Mrs. Rao that the Respondent had deserted the Petitioner need not continue to engage our attention. Although the Respondent has in her written statement contended that the Petitioner had deserted her, no attempt is made to make it good. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner has not prove animus deserendi nor has he alleged desertion or has the Respondent proved that the Petitioner has conducted himself willfully in a manner which furnishes reasonable cause for the wife to stay away from the matrimonial home. 125. Throughout the arguments before us the emphasis was on the question of maintenance. We will deal with this aspect of maintenance which is the only real issue that needs to be considered. 126. The trial court also found that the Petitioner was very rich, does not want to disclose his real income and was lying about his real income. The Court found that although an attempt was to show that the Respondent-wife is not wealthy and does not have any income and the trial court came to the conclusion that after the marriage the Respondent had concealed her assets transferred her share holding investments, etc. despite which she was entitled to some amounts by way of maintenance from the Petitioner. 127. The Family Court vide the impugned order directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000/- p.m. Each to the Respondent-wife and the daughter from the date of the order i.e. 21st April, 2008. In Family Court Appeal No. 105/2007 filed by the Respondent-wife, the Respondent challenges the quantum of maintenance and have taken out the Civil Application for the same. The Civil Application No. 258/2008 filed by the Respondent for enhancement of maintenance to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- each to the Respondent and the minor daughter. Besides the Civil Application has since been ordered to be heard along with these Appeals by an order dated 15th July, 2010 passed by this Court while disposing of the Civil Application No. 114/2010 in Family Court Appeal No. 105/2008 and Civil Application No. 117/2010 in First Appeal No. 105/2008. The Civil Application No. 114/2010 was taken out for order directing the Petitioner to pay education of Respondent's daughter. 128. While disposing of the application for education expenses, this Court directed that the Petitioner-husband would deposited an amount of Rs. The Civil Application No. 114/2010 was taken out for order directing the Petitioner to pay education of Respondent's daughter. 128. While disposing of the application for education expenses, this Court directed that the Petitioner-husband would deposited an amount of Rs. 6,54,000/- will extended and the main appeal itself came to be expedited. By further order dated 10th December, 2012 the Petitioner-husband was permitted to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. Payable to Respondent-wife and their daughter in the registry of this Court and the Respondent-wife was allowed to withdraw the said amount upon such deposit. Accordingly, we have informed that all amounts payable towards maintenance have been paid. 129. As far as issue No. 3 is concerned, the Petitioner has denied custody of the child Ayesha, however, as we write this judgment that the child is already a major and is studying abroad. In the grounds of Appeal the Petitioner-husband has not challenged refusal of custody. Thus, the only surviving issues are the subject matter of challenge are whether the Respondent and the daughter are entitled to maintenance and the quantum. 130. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent have successfully demonstrated that the other was extremely wealthy and the Respondent well provided for. This can be seen from the evidence first of the Petitioner wherein he stated that after separating from his brother's business, he started another company called Anivin Nigeria Ltd. He was Managing Director of Anivin Nigeria Ltd. and claimed that he held 30% of shares in the company and earned salary of Rs. 30,000/- and in addition, the company provided car, residence and the driver. He has suppressed the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company. In cross examination, he claimed that he had not attended the board meetings since 2002. He admitted that although in year 1999, the company made profits, the same were wiped away due to loss in the year 1998 but he was unaware of the extent of loss incurred. He contended that there was no resolution passed during 1998 to 2005 in respect of the wiping out of the losses. He could not provide the information relating to the stock of goods held by the company in 1998. 131. He admitted to having received US $ 1,00,000/- as his share upon leaving his brother's business time. He contended that there was no resolution passed during 1998 to 2005 in respect of the wiping out of the losses. He could not provide the information relating to the stock of goods held by the company in 1998. 131. He admitted to having received US $ 1,00,000/- as his share upon leaving his brother's business time. He admitted that after separation from his brother he rented a 3 BHK apartment but he could not recall the rent amount paid. He spent about US $25,000 for renovation, purchasing furniture from London and having the same transported. All these costs were borne by the company. In 1993, he had two maids and one cook in the house. The salaries of these persons were paid by the company. The driver was also employed by the company, yet, he could not produce any document to show the perks that he enjoyed from 1993-98. The company had provided three cars but there is no document on record for the same. He deposed that the cars were provided by way of an "oral agreement" with the company. He admitted that company spent about Rs. 50 lakhs which includes furniture, fixture, rent of apartment, agent's fees, tenancy agreement charges etc. The electricity bills were paid by the company in those days of about Rs. 10,000/-. He was not assessed to tax in India and could not state the salaries of other persons looking for other company. He has admitted to having bank accounts with Oman International Bank, Bank of Baroda, UTI Bank, OCBC Bank Singapore, Chemical Bank, New York, large amounts of monies have passed through these accounts. There has been transactions between his sister Jyoti Mahajan between June 1994 and 1998. In the bank statement of Oman International Bank itself, Rs. 7,49,69,003.35 had been credited to his bank account out of which a sum of Rs. 6,63,55,965.41 was withdrawn. He admitted that certain business transactions have been intermingling with personal funds, but no bifurcation was furnished. This is only an indication of the fact that the amounts which have been passed through bank accounts referred to may include business transactions. However, he was not willing to identify his personal funds. The fact that the Petitioner is a wealthy and engaged in business in Nigeria where he continues to work and run the businesses is beyond doubt. 132. However, he was not willing to identify his personal funds. The fact that the Petitioner is a wealthy and engaged in business in Nigeria where he continues to work and run the businesses is beyond doubt. 132. Coming to the financial position of the wife, Mrs. Rao, the learned advocate for the Petitioner has demonstrated and as has been admitted by the Respondent and her father, the Respondent's father is extremely wealthy, far wealthier than the petitioned being based out of Singapore, engaged in business there and in India. The Petitioner has provided a chart indicating various companies owned, managed, controlled by the Respondent and her father. The Respondent was shareholder in Sanwa Finance Ltd., Palmar and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Modfash Exports Pvt. Ltd., Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd., Lekhraj and Sons Exports Pvt. Ltd., Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vanita Apparels and Jayem Fashions Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid companies have cross holdings in other group companies. For instance, Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. holds shares in 9 other group companies, Palmar Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. holds shares in 16 group companies, Modfash Exports Pvt. Ltd. holds shares in 14 group companies, Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd. holds shares in 14 companies, Lekhraj and Sons holds shares in 4 companies, Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd. holds shares in 2 companies and Vanita Apparels holds shares in 2 companies. It is pertinent to mention that Palmar Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. also owns two valuable apartments one in Mumbai and one in the Prestigious NCPA Apartments at Nariman Point, Mumbai and Blue Haven at Malabar Hill. At different point in time, the Respondent Vinita Kripalani has held shares many if not all the businesses as set out in Exhibit 117 and 177. 133. Apart from these contentions, a trust named Vanita Trust held shares in Jayem Exports Pvt. Ltd., Lekhraj and Sons Exports Pvt. Ltd., Sanwa Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vanita Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and through these four companies held shares in 22 other group companies as listed in Exhibit 117. We have no doubt that upon the matrimonial petition and being summons served upon the Respondent, she promptly divested herself of personal holdings in these companies. This has been brought in the cross examination of the Respondent as well as the cross-examination of the Respondent's father Murli Lekhraj. We have no doubt that upon the matrimonial petition and being summons served upon the Respondent, she promptly divested herself of personal holdings in these companies. This has been brought in the cross examination of the Respondent as well as the cross-examination of the Respondent's father Murli Lekhraj. Apart from these companies in India, the Respondent was admittedly a director of a entity incorporated in Singapore where the Respondent's father carries on business. 134. In the case of Saniva International (PTE)Ltd. and Orfadi (Far East) PTE Ltd. Singapore also the company was engaged in manufacture of garments. The Respondent was a director in the said two Singapore companies and a third company in which Sanwa (Holdings) Pte. Ltd. Respondent was appointed as a director on 1st August, 1998 and continued to be director till 15th May, 2003 when she has ceased be director presumably by way of resignation after the petition was served upon her. The annual reports of the various companies which has been brought on record also reveal sizable investments by those companies. For instance, the Annual Return of Sanwa Capitals Pvt. Ltd. as of 9th May, 2002 reveals that it held 39900 shares of various group of companies listed above. The Sanwa Capitals Pvt. Ltd. held shares in stocks of public limited companies of a value of more than 1,30,97,062/- as of March 2001. In this manner, large amounts of investments are also seen in Sanwa Finance Pvt. Ltd. which discloses holding in equity shares of companies and short term investments amounting to Rs. 13,91,29,374/- as on 31st March, 2006. Palmar Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. held fixed assets in terms of immovable property and other assets valued at Rs. 10,39,05,268/- as of 31st March, 2001. It includes two immovable properties which are more valuable today after the passage of 15 years from the date of initial valuation. Modfash Exports Pvt. Ltd. had investments worth Rs. 44,52,574/- Jayem Exports held aggregate value of investments of Rs. 7,24,29,588/- as of 31st March, 2000. No doubt apart from these investments there will also be liabilities in businesses, however, even providing for these, the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts produced on record reveal that more than substantial assets were under the control of the Respondent's family members. 44,52,574/- Jayem Exports held aggregate value of investments of Rs. 7,24,29,588/- as of 31st March, 2000. No doubt apart from these investments there will also be liabilities in businesses, however, even providing for these, the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts produced on record reveal that more than substantial assets were under the control of the Respondent's family members. The Respondent has for obvious reasons sought to distance herself from these business in order to create any impression and in our view deliberately stated that she has no income of her own and she is entirely dependent on her father for survival. For the purpose of these Appeals, we are not required to deal with into details of the investments and wealth of the Respondent. No case for enhancement of maintenance has been made out. During the course of submissions we inquired to Mrs. Rao, the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner was willing to contribute towards the cost of education of their daughter Ayesha who is presently studying in Berkeley College in the U.K. The Petitioner has fairly agreed to share one half of the expenses. We are, therefore, of the view that the Respondent is not entitled to any enhancement of the maintenance being paid by the Petitioner. We also do not intend to disturb the order of the Family Court granting maintenance. The Respondent wife will be entitled to inform the Petitioner husband about the expenditure required to be incurred on the education of the daughter. In the event, the Petitioner husband declines to contribute within a reasonable time, the Respondent wife will be entitled to apply to the Family Court for appropriate directions in the light of the statement of the learned Counsel for the husband. 135. We are of the view that the Respondent is entitled to continue to receive maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month for herself and further sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month for maintenance of her daughter Ayesha. In addition to these amounts, the Respondent and the Petitioner will share equally the daughter's education expenses. The Respondent's lifestyle does not appear to have undergone any major change after she has stopped cohabitation with the Petitioner. She has continued to holiday abroad. She has also made several incorrect statements as to the need for medical treatment and cost of treatment. The Respondent's lifestyle does not appear to have undergone any major change after she has stopped cohabitation with the Petitioner. She has continued to holiday abroad. She has also made several incorrect statements as to the need for medical treatment and cost of treatment. In cross examination she has admitted that she was not hospitalized for her medical condition but she is taking some tablets on which she has to spent Rs. 60/- p.m. She admitted that the sum of USD 52000 was transferred to the Sanwa International (PTE) Ltd. It was so transferred at the instance of her father and she has taken loans from her father. She claimed that she does not understand finances or the business and as she is not educated therefore does not understand documents. She does not handle the finances of the Petitioner and she does not personally know the financial position of the Petitioner, nor has she tried to find out about them. We do not believe that she is a person without means or capability. She has proceeded to educate her daughter in England without seeking the Petitioner's consent or permission with the express knowledge about the costs of education abroad. She is no doubt a person of means whether or not her businesses are controlled by her father. Both sides have demonstrated huge reluctance in disclosing their real earnings and assets to the court. They have been extremely guarded in disclosing matters of finance. We are not in agreement with the submission of Mrs. Rao that the Respondent is not entitled to maintenance on account of her having allegedly deserted the Petitioner. At the same time, we do not find there is any case for enhancement of maintenance given the financial background of the Respondent and the facade that she has no income of her own. In these circumstances, we pass the following order:-- "(i) Family Court Appeal No. 105 of 2007 is dismissed; (ii) Civil Application No. 258 of 2008 taken out by the Respondent-wife do not survive. The same is also dismissed; (iii) Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2008 is dismissed; (iv) Civil Application No. 59 of 2012 does not survive and the same is also dismissed; (v) The Petitioner i.e. Appellant in Family Court Appeal No. 128/2008, Anil Kripalani shall continue to pay maintenance to the Respondent Vanita Anil Kripalani in a sum of Rs. The same is also dismissed; (iii) Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2008 is dismissed; (iv) Civil Application No. 59 of 2012 does not survive and the same is also dismissed; (v) The Petitioner i.e. Appellant in Family Court Appeal No. 128/2008, Anil Kripalani shall continue to pay maintenance to the Respondent Vanita Anil Kripalani in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month and also continue to pay Rs. 25,000/- to his daughter; (vi) The Respondent wife will be entitled to inform the Petitioner husband about the expenditure required to be incurred on the education of the daughter. In the event, the Petitioner husband declines to contribute within a reasonable time, the Respondent wife will be entitled to approach the Family Court for appropriate directions. (vii) Each party to bear their respective costs."