Taking into consideration the man's "sound" income from various business sources, as he runs IT companies in three countries, and his lavish lifestyle, the court also asked him to pay Rs 50,000 as litigation fees to his wife.
Dismissing the businessman's plea, a computer engineer based in London, a bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Najmi Waziri upheld the family court's September 2011 order directing him to pay the amount to his wife, who is in India and unemployed after leaving the UK.
The court rejected the man's argument that he has obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce from a UK court and Indian court's direction for maintenance was wrong.
Further, the court rejected the man's arguments that his wife was possessed of means, is capable of earning for herself and had suppressed the fact that she is actually a recipient of unemployment allowance from the UK government.
The bench also said, "Though the husband has reported losses in his business venture, at the same time, the director's report and income tax statement of income and expenditure reveal that director's remuneration has been shown in the companies in which he has a controlling interest.