Photographed at Formula 1 race,man loses alimony case

In November,the wife left their Borivali home after she was accused of being “cruel” to the man’s 17-year-old son from a previous marriage. She gave birth to their daughter in August 2000 and was back with him in June 2003 after her mother-in-law’s death,only to be separated again in November 2003.

In 2006,the husband filed for divorce,following which the woman sought interim monthly maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act.

In 2011,the family court granted her Rs 7,000 and Rs 3,000 to their daughter after the husband claimed he was a “servant” in a diamond company. The wife contested this and sought a larger amount.

The family court took note of the fact that the husband earned a “fantastic income of not less than Rs 6 lakh per month” and increased the maintenance on July 6,2012.

Along with documents indicating his income,the wife submitted photographs of the husband watching an F1 Grand Prix in the UAE last year. In the pictures,he is seen wearing a T-shirt and a cap priced at $ 63 and $ 41 on the Grand Prix website.

The wife’s lawyers Mayur Khandeparkar and Himanshu Kode said Dubai Multi Commodities Centre directory showed the man was managing director of six diamond and gold companies.

“The photograph shows the respondent is in the background of Sheikhs of an Arab country. These details substantiate the stand of the petitioner that her husband is a rich man,he can afford to attend an F1 race,wear an expensive cap and an expensive T-shirt,” the family court said.

It called the husband a “Richie rich person”,and observed,“He is not dealing in grocery items but in precious gems and diamonds. He is living not in an ordinary Indian city like Solapur,Kolhapur but in Dubai. He is not attending ordinary events like a 20×20 cricket match at Wankhede Stadium but Grand Prix F1 in Abu Dhabi. All these details enable the petitioner (wife) to live the same lifestyle the respondent is living. He cannot ditch his wife and enjoy life with all this financial power.”

The husband said his employer gave him free passes to the event and challenged the order in Bombay High Court (HC).

HC dismissed his petition Friday,saying there was “nothing at fault with the quantum of maintenance” he was asked to pay by the family court in July 2012.