-
by Admin
08 April 2026 9:23 AM
"Deliberate Suppression of Income Cannot Be Rewarded…An Able-Bodied Man Must Maintain His Family – He Cannot Take Shelter Under False Financial Hardship," Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed by XXX, a company director, who challenged an order passed by the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, granting ₹20,000 per month each to his wife and minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court found that the husband had “deliberately concealed his income” and could not evade his legal and moral obligation to maintain his dependents.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Madan Pal Singh relied on several binding precedents including Rajnesh v. Neha, Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, and Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani, to hold that financial misrepresentations by the husband were designed to defeat a legitimate claim, and such conduct could not be allowed to override the welfare of his estranged wife and child.
“Standard of Living Can’t Be Diminished Just Because Marriage Broke Down” — Maintenance Must Reflect Husband's Real Status, Says Court
"Maintenance is not charity but a right anchored in dignity and legal obligation"
The wife, Ritika Gupta, had filed a petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after separating from her husband due to cruelty and dowry harassment. While the husband claimed that he earned only ₹2.4 lakhs annually and worked as a mere salaried director, documentary evidence submitted by the wife showed deposits of ₹67.55 lakhs into company accounts and movable assets worth over ₹1 crore in his name and that of his family members—who were also co-directors in the same company.
The Court dismissed the husband's plea of limited income, holding:
“The revisionist has deliberately not filed the relevant documents regarding income, assets, losses, and profits... The trial court rightly found that he attempted to conceal his real income.” [Para 25–26]
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reaffirmed that:
“Maintenance awarded must be reasonable and realistic, neither so extravagant as to be oppressive, nor so meagre as to drive the wife to penury.” [Para 23]
“Education Alone Doesn’t Deny a Woman’s Right to Maintenance” – Wife's Capability to Earn Not Enough Without Proof of Actual Employment
The husband argued that his wife was educated (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma) and had previously worked before their daughter’s birth, earning around ₹30,000 per month. However, the Court observed that she had left employment on his insistence, and was now solely caring for their minor child, thereby rendering her financially dependent.
The Court reiterated the principle from Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan:
“A woman’s past employment or qualifications cannot be used as a ground to deny maintenance, especially when she is currently unemployed and solely burdened with child care.” [Para 13]
Noting the lack of any concrete evidence to show her present earning capacity, the Court affirmed that:
“The wife is unable to maintain herself and her child, and the husband is under a legal obligation to support them.” [Para 19]
"Manipulated ITRs and Misleading Affidavits Won’t Shield You from Responsibility" – Court Condemns Income Suppression Tactics
The Court scrutinized the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) filed by the husband and found major inconsistencies. For instance, while he claimed ₹2.4 lakh annual salary, he was found to have deposited ₹67.55 lakhs into his company accounts in a single year. Further, he had failed to disclose income from shares, interest, HUF accounts, or movable/immovable assets. The Court observed:
“Such manipulation of income is a clear attempt to escape liability... The trial court rightly drew an adverse inference against him.” [Para 27]
In one particularly damning observation, the Court noted:
“In a company where the father and mother of the revisionist received increased salaries even when the company reported a loss, but the son's salary decreased—it clearly suggests an effort to misrepresent earnings.” [Para 27]
Presumption Against Able-Bodied Man—Court Emphasises Binding Law
Quoting the Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani, the Court emphasized: “An able-bodied young man is presumed capable of earning sufficient to reasonably maintain his wife and child. He cannot plead financial incapacity to shirk his legal duty.” [Para 28]
Trial Court’s Maintenance Order Upheld in Full
The High Court found no merit in the revision and dismissed it while upholding the Family Court’s order granting:
₹20,000/month to the wife
₹20,000/month to the minor daughter
From the date of the application, i.e., February 14, 2022
The judgment reaffirmed that: “Maintenance is not meant to punish the husband but to prevent the wife and child from being reduced to destitution. The Court cannot reward deceitful suppression of wealth with reduced liability.” [Para 23]
Date of Decision: 08/10/2025
