Katy Nowzer Mehta had filed a criminal case against Nowzer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
Hearing a revision application filed by a south Mumbai resident locked in a legal dispute with her estranged husband and his parents over maintenance and alimony due to her, the Sessions Court has upheld her argument that income tax returns alone may not reflect her estranged husband's actual income. It has, therefore, allowed the woman to examine witnesses to establish her estranged husband's true income.
The Sessions Court held that the woman must receive an opportunity on merit to prove her claim to have a just decision. Katy Nowzer Mehta, 57, who was married to Nowzer Keki Mehta, 62, in 1993, was allegedly forced to leave her matrimonial house in April 2010. Katy had filed a criminal case against Nowzer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
At the trial state, when Katy pleaded before the lower court for reasonable maintenance and alimony, Nowzer, who according to Katy, had 39 per cent shares in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, had allegedly transferred some of his shares, retaining just 10 per cent of the shares for himself.
Katy alleged that this was a deliberate ploy to deprive her of the right maintenance and alimony amount. She had thus filed an application before the lower court to allow her to examine witnesses to establish Nowzer's real income.
The lower court, however, rejected the application and directed Nowzer to submit his documents, either income tax return or any other document, reflecting his income to the extent of his shares in BPCL over the past five years.
In an appeal filed before the Sessions Court, Katy had argued, "It is her indefensible right to pray for the summoning of witnesses if the evidence appears to be essential to just decision of the case. Also, just a self-attested photocopy of the income tax return cannot be considered, and the return does not disclose the real income of the person. The examination of witnesses is not going to cause any prejudice to Nowzer, but on the contrary, she will be precluded from proving the real income of her husband."
The appeal was, however, opposed by Nowzer, claiming that there was no merit in the application.
The court at the time of passing orders held, "It appeared that the wife is claiming that there is specific income of her husband, whereas husband was claiming that he is not earning to that extent. In such situation, when wife desires to examine the in-charge of the Gas Supplier/Agency in which her husband had some share, she must receive an opportunity on merit to prove her claim to have a just decision."
It added, "Though income tax documents were filed on record showing the income, the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition filed by one Pinky Mahendra Kumar Jain which was decided on October 6, 2017, ruled that income tax documents do not reflect the true picture of the income of the parties. The High Court in its orders had then directed the trial court to take into consideration the lifestyle of the parties and all other aspects. In such situation, the application of wife is entitled to be allowed to prove her claim on merit. No prejudice is going to be caused to her husband as he has every opportunity of cross-examining the witness."
THE CASE
- Katy Mehta, who was married to Nowzer Keki Mehta in 1993, was allegedly forced to leave her matrimonial house in 2010. She had filed a criminal case against Nowzer.
- Her husband had 39 per cent shares in BPCL. However, he allegedly transferred some of his shares, retaining just 10 per cent of the shares for himself.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Sessions Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}