The Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a pivotal judgment, stating that a husband’s failure to file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities when his wife seeks interim maintenance could result in adverse inferences against him. This significant ruling by Justice Sumeet Goel comes as a reinforcement of the legal requirements intended to ensure transparency and fairness in maintenance proceedings.
In detailing the court’s rationale, Justice Goel referenced Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Sections 106 and 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 respectively. He noted, “In instances where a party does not file the required affidavit despite ample opportunities, it becomes necessary for the court to draw adverse inferences.”
The matter reached the High Court following a husband’s challenge to a Family Court decision mandating him to pay Rs. 10,000 monthly as interim maintenance to his wife and minor son. The husband’s legal team contended that this amount was unjustified given the husband’s limited income and the wife’s earnings from her embroidery and tailoring activities.
Despite these arguments, the High Court found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the wife had any substantial independent income or owned any significant assets. It was determined that she lacked sufficient means to support herself and her child, particularly concerning the child’s education and general welfare.
Justice Goel emphasized the necessity of accurate maintenance calculations, which are not strictly based on precise calculations but rather on the immediate needs and rights of the applicant. The judgment reaffirms the importance of providing necessary financial support to ensure that dependent spouses and their children can maintain a reasonable standard of living.
By upholding the Family Court’s decision, the High Court reiterated the crucial role of complete financial transparency in determining maintenance payments.
