In an important ruling, the Bombay High Court significantly increased the maintenance payable to a divorced wife—from ₹50,000 to ₹3.5 lakh per month. The Division Bench of Justice Burgess Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that courts must look at a person’s real financial situation, not just their declared income. They noted that in many Indian business families, official records often do not show a person’s true financial capacity.

Background:

The case arose from a petition filed by Purvi Gada, who, after 16 years of marriage to Pune-based real estate businessman Mukesh Gada, struggled to sustain herself and their daughter. Despite Purvi’s efforts to independently earn ₹1 lakh per month as a private tutor, she continued to face significant financial hardship, especially when compared to Mukesh and their son, who continued to maintain a markedly higher standard of living.

The Bench observed that Mukesh Gada had not truthfully revealed his financial resources. He misled the Pune Family Court by claiming that he earned only ₹6 lakh a year and by relying on Income Tax Returns that served his own interests. In reality, he was described as the “torchbearer” of the large Gada family business group. Evidence provided by Purvi, along with information available in public records, showed significant business interests and major financial transactions that did not match his declared income.

“Mukesh's approach to Court with unclean hands; the scale of expenses he indicates were incurred on the family during the 16-year married life; the expenses projected by Purvi; also factoring in that Purvi has been working hard as a private tutor to make ends meet; factoring in inflation; and also discounting the fact that the daughter is of the age of majority and yet would need significant resources to get a good professional education… it would be appropriate that Purvi is given further maintenance in a further sum of Rs 3 lakhs per month… In other words, Purvi shall be entitled to an aggregate monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs. 3,50,000 per month.” asserted the bench.

The Court observed that Mukesh asserted that much of the family’s assets were owned by his brothers and father and that he had taken loans for his son’s education. However, material produced by Purvi and publicly available information contradicted these assertions, indicating financial means far beyond what he disclosed on oath.

In its 41-page judgment, the Bench discussed in detail how Indian business families operate and how male members often enjoy financial benefits supported by the shared family business pool.

The Court observed: “…what makes it to the personal income-tax returns of the specific family member as ‘taxable income’ is not the sole determinant of what is earned and enjoyed by such family members.”

It added that spouses, especially housewives who marry into such families, are part of this wider financial system, and courts must take that into account.

"A blinkered focus on… assets as the family has chosen to officially leave in the hands of the husband's Income Tax balance sheet… would be quite inappropriate, misleading and unjust.” The judges stressed that courts must consider de facto financial capacity, lifestyle, and social standing, not merely curated financial disclosures.

The Court remarked: “Mukesh is a man of considerable means, and therefore his submissions on oath that he is leading a hand- to-mouth existence, not only erodes his credibility, but also underlines the fact that he has not come clean on important factual aspects of what needs consideration. If Mukesh's contentions were right, it would be a miracle that he has survived, quite apart from having financially supported his son and brought him up. It would be an even bigger miracle that he would have ever had the means to lend Purvi's uncle a loan of Rs. 50 lakhs,”

Purvi also placed evidence of Mukesh’s luxurious lifestyle on record, including: International holidays, including to Macau, Lavish birthday celebrations with free-flowing alcohol, Wearing Kenzo luxury T-shirts priced at least ₹15,000, features of his home in architectural magazines.
The Bench considered this evidence carefully and noted that these details shed important light on Mukesh’s true standard of living.

Justice Sundaresan said, “We must hasten to add that to our minds, there is nothing to be judgmental or inappropriate about throwing a milestone birthday party with free-flowing alcohol, or the donning of expensive top of the line luxury brand T-shirts at the party. What does not appeal to us in forming our judgment, is the act of contemporaneously lying on oath about being a man of no means, earning just Rs. 6 lakhs per annum (about Rs. 50,000 per month) and asking for a low-end maintenance awarded by the Family Court of a mere Rs. 50,000 per month for a wife divorced after 16 years of cohabitation, to be stayed pending hearing of the appeals,”

Acknowledging that Purvi had single-handedly raised her daughter since the age of nine, while Mukesh defaulted even on interim maintenance the bench stated, “What is prima facie very clear is that she has had to compromise on her right to lead the same quality of life and standard of living commensurate with the matrimonial standard of 16 years of marriage. The standard of living and expenses of the male members and their respective spouses in the Gada Family are funded by such closely knit and powerfully inter-connected finances. The standard of living of any spouse such as Purvi, of a male member of such a family, as the one Mukesh is a torchbearer of, cannot ignore the wider network power of the inter-connected finances.”

Rejecting the argument that Purvi earned ₹1 lakh per month through multiple jobs, the Court held: “If a divorced wife needs three jobs to end up making her income add up to Rs 1 lakh per month, after 16 years of a high standard of living as Mukesh's wife and a member of the Gada household, Mukesh's own submissions would necessitate holding that Purvi is struggling hard to maintain a decent life for her daughter, which ought to be a shared responsibility of a father”

The Court strongly criticized Mukesh’s contention that Purvi should not have spent on her daughter’s yoga, violin, baking or fitness classes as a separated woman.

Calling the submission patriarchal, the judges said: “The contention is that a woman divorced from her husband should curtail what her daughter should get but a woman choosing not to leave her husband can expect more.”

They added: “That a mother dares to work hard and even claim to depend on her own brother to give the daughter (who is as much Mukesh's offspring) a decent life, cannot be a disqualification for expecting that the daughter's expenses for a decent standard of living be met by the father, commensurate with his own standard of living and more importantly, the parents' joint standard of living when the marriage had lasted.”

Mukesh’s argument that the ₹50 lakh loan to Purvi’s uncle should be set off against maintenance was also rejected by the court that observed that, “A marriage and the payment of maintenance at divorce is not a lending and borrowing transaction for such an approach to be adopted. To claim a set-off on amounts purportedly owed to Mukesh by an uncle of Purvi also does not make sense in view of the families of Purvi and Mukesh being distantly related. If a loan taken by Purvi's uncle can inform the maintenance payable to Purvi, the shared resources of Mukesh and his brothers and father would be even more relevant..”

Finding that ₹50,000 per month was “hardly a reasonable and logical quantum of maintenance,” the Bench enhanced the amount to ₹3.5 lakh per month, recognizing Purvi’s right to a life of dignity commensurate with the matrimonial standard of living.

Case Title: Purvi Mukesh Gada vs Mukesh Popatlal Gada(Interim Application 16733 of 2023)