Objection: 6

Ans: Facts pertaining to income of Respondent: Needless to say that her ITR’s are file by her brother Ankur Khare who happens to be an Income Tax advocate by profession .Only the banks statements of the said bank accounts can reveal the truth .

It is to be noted further that ,she has two joint bank accounts -Axis Bank (911010056397880) and Yes Bank (0444511000033) with her brother Ankur Khare who is an Income Tax advocate by profession .  

When Respondent was caught red handed ,lying on oath about her income in the above mentioned Axis Bank account ,her brother Ankur Khare, who is an Income Tax advocate by profession, came to her defense saying on an affidavit submitted in the Family Court that he has been using his sister’s account for the “purpose of his business and that she has nothing to do” with  the money lying in the Axis Bank account despite she(Megha Khare)  being the first account holder and getting an income tax refund  against  her PAN card in this account .

It becomes pertinent to ask ,if this explanation cited by her brother Ankur Khare gets extended to Yes Bank account no (0444511000033) as well ? Why did she not disclose this account number and the income thereof to the lower court . Is it just because in the year 2019 ,the affidavit of Rajnesh Vs Neha was not applicable ? Can anyone take the liberty of making a false claim or concealing vital information from the honorable court, ir-respective of whether the person happens to be a petitioner or a respondent ?

Since it has been highlighted several instances of Bank statements across FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 of Respondent having a continuous source of income, but learned court below never asked for any explanation about each and every single entry showing credit of income in Respondent Megha’s account and the nature of business activity that she is involved in.

On a hindsight , it is very much possible that Respondent Megha may have been a partner in her father’s law firm P.N. Khare and Company . It is only then that it becomes logically viable for her brother Ankur to use his sister’s account “for purpose of his business”

 

If that be the case, she definitely was self employed until her submission of affidavit to the HC on Nov 2,2022. On a safeguarding measure , Ankur may have removed her name from the partnership deed . This therfore becomes a matter of thorough investigation both for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and appropriateness of this affidavit and a possible manipulation done intentionally, amounting to Perjury.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Discuss the case law of Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174 for maintenance of wife?

Ans: According to Chander Prakash Bodhraj v Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, an able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court. Conclusion: So, if the husband has liabilities like loans and other legal obligations, he will not be entitled to provide maintenance to earning wife.  Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was obligatory on the part of the Petitioner-wife to allege and prove that she was unable to maintain herself. According to Shri Rege the expression used in t...
Read more

Q: Discuss the citation of Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar V. Aarti on 22 June, 2018 ?

Ans: On the misuse of the provisions for claim maintenance, it is opined by Madras High Court on Hari Har Raj Kalingarayar vs Aarti on 22 June, 2018 that it is a matter of deep concern that though the law for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances where the wife focus her husband as like that of an ATM and the beneficial provisions of law are considered to be utilized as a tool of harassment. 
Read more

Question of law:

1. Whether the honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh has not ignored to consider the guidelines of Deb Narayan Halder vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 , it which it is clearly mentioned that the wife can not claim maintenance if she is unable to prove cruelty. The court can not grant maintenance on the basis of conjecture and surmise and the respondent, Smt Megha Khare has made false allegations on petitioner after receiving the notice of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights and she has not proved any allegation on petitioner.  2. Where the honourable high court of Madhya Pradesh has erred in not considering the legal maxim ' Salus populi est suprema lex or Suprema lex salus populi which means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. In other words, it means public welfare is the highest law. The Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh neither ordered the respondent, Smt. Megha Khare to prove the cruelty on herself nor considered that...
Read more