MRS. PRAJNA BHAT v. MR. ANEESH N. BHAT

3. The facts of the case are that; The marriage of the petitioner – wife and the respondent – husband had taken place on 25.04.2018. The parties, after marriage, they left to Australia. In Australia, on 23.11.2020, the wife had to leave the home and in the month of May, 2021, she filed a petition for divorce in India. The husband had filed a petition for divorce in the month of June, 2021 before the Federal Circuit and Family Court at Australia. The husband has filed his statement of objections, wherein he has mentioned about the said petition filed by him, which was very much within the knowledge of the wife. It is the case of the petitioner that she is pursuing her Master’s there and she was thrown out of the home. Husband has an obligation to maintain her and therefore, she has sought for maintenance at the rate of 2000 Australian Dollars i.e., Rs.1,14,000/- per month. On

21.06.2022, divorce is granted by the Family Court at Australia, wherein in the notes, it is mentioned that if a party to the marriage proposes to make an application to a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, 1975 as to property or as to the maintenance of that party, such application must be filed within 12 months from the date on which the divorce order - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27492 WP No. 23459 of 2021 takes effect. After that time such an application cannot be made without first obtaining the leave of the Court to do so. A divorce order which has taken effect may revoke, or otherwise affect the operation of, the Will of a party.

4. Before the order is passed by the Court of Australia, I.A.No.3 is filed under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, whereby the wife had sought for an exparte temporary injunction restraining the husband from pursuing further divorce petition No.(P)PAC No.4361/2021 pending on the file of the Federal Circuit and Family Court, Parrampatta, and objection to the main petition is filed. This order impugned came to be passed on 03.06.2022 and the Australian Court had passed an order on 21.06.2022. The suit O.S.No.13/2022 filed by the petitioner herein by order dated 14.08.2023 came to be disposed off as infructuous. The suit is filed seeking on order of prohibitory injunction restraining the husband from pursuing in the divorce petition at Australia. As the said divorce proceedings are already concluded, the Court has held that the suit has become infructuous and accordingly, the same was dismissed as infructuous. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27492 WP No. 23459 of 2021

5. The Family Court by order impugned had dismissed the application filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance on the ground that a plain reading of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 makes it clear that the parties to the proceedings who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and for the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the Court may on the application of anyone of them order the other party to pay the expenses of the proceedings and for the reasonable maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings. It is also observed that both the husband and the wife failed to comply with the directions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another1. Both of them did not opt to file their personal affidavit of Assets and Liabilities as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The GPA Holder of the petitioner i.e., father and respondent filed affidavit of Assets and Liabilities respectively by affixing their signatures to the said affidavits. Then the Court felt that this is not in consonance with the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh case (referred to supra). The other aspect to be 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:27492 WP No. 23459 of 2021 considered is, whether the wife is in need of financial assistance from the respondent for her maintenance or not. According to her, she has no independent income of her own and she is pursuing her Master’s Degree in Information Technology in Australia. The petitioner being a B.E Graduate and she was working for Infosys while she was in India. The petitioner was employed and she was earning as long as she stayed in India. Now, she is permanently residing at Australia. It is the case of the husband that he maintained the wife as long as she stayed with him by providing her with reasonable comforts and he moved out from the rented premises in which they lived together at Australia at the instance of the petitioner, leaving the rented premises for exclusive use of the wife and he paid the rent as long as she stayed in the rental premises and thereafter, she surrendered the rental premises and shifted her residence at her choice. The husband produced the photocopy of the Commonwealth Bank Statement of the petitioner in Australia to show that on 24.12.2020, Australian Dollars 1500 was debited from the petitioner’s account to the account of her father and also produced a copy of the statement of accounts pertaining to the petitioner’s father HDFC Bank Account to show - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:27492 WP No. 23459 of 2021 the amount credited by the wife to the father’s bank account. In August 2020 itself, the wife opened her separate bank account and started residing separately in a different accommodation. He also furnished the address, where she is residing. Then the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence placed before the Court leads to an inference that the wife is well qualified and she is capable of maintaining herself. It is not the case of the wife that she cannot secure a job for maintenance at Australia even after her best possible efforts. The job opportunities in Australia that too for a B.E Graduate have to be taken into consideration. The wife is capable of maintaining herself. The wife claims that she is earning by doing project works in Australia and as such, she is pursuing her studies. The husband has not produced any documents to show that the wife is having earnings and she is capable of maintaining herself. The copy of the bank statements produced by the husband shows that the wife had transferred money to her father’s account and the wife has not produced her bank statement, which she is holding at Commonwealth Bank, Australia. The Court observed that the wife had suppressed the information relating to the bank account, which she is holding - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:27492 WP No. 23459 of 2021 at Australia. Hence, the contention of the wife that she is not capable of maintaining herself and she is not having sufficient income for her maintenance and to meet her litigation expenses cannot be accepted. Hence, dismissed the petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – wife submits that in view of the difference of opinion between the parties, they separated and at that relevant point of time, she required maintenance from the husband. It is submitted that the husband has failed to take care of the wife and instituted a case before the Family Court at Australia and in spite of an order by the Court restraining him from pursuing the matter, he obtained a decree of divorce from the Family Court at Australia. He has relied on certain paragraphs of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another2, which reads as under; “79. In Manish Jain V. Akanksha Jain3 this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes