The Allahabad High Court has observed that courts can draw an adverse inference against a husband who fails to file an affidavit disclosing his income and assets in interim maintenance proceedings, despite being given ample opportunities.
Justice Garima Prashad dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court, Pilibhit, which directed him to pay Rs. 3,500 per month as interim maintenance to his wife. The Court held that the reliance on the disclosure affidavit ensures a fair assessment and prevents financial misrepresentation.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an application for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the respondent-wife. The parties were married on June 14, 2020, according to Hindu rites and rituals. The wife alleged that she was forced out of her matrimonial home on March 14, 2022, due to dowry demands and has since been living with her parents.
Claiming that the revisionist-husband had not paid any maintenance since the separation, she sought a monthly allowance of Rs. 15,000 for her studies and daily expenses, including medical costs, along with Rs. 2,000 per month for litigation expenses.
On August 12, 2024, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, finding that the husband had failed to disclose his income, drew an inference against him and ordered him to pay Rs. 3,500 per month as interim maintenance. Aggrieved by this order, the husband approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The respondent-wife submitted an affidavit detailing her income, assets, and educational qualifications, stating that she is currently unemployed. She asserted that the revisionist owns 75 Bighas of agricultural land, engages in farming on lease, and runs coaching classes for competitive examinations, earning approximately Rs. 40,000 per month.
Conversely, the counsel for the revisionist-husband argued that the revisionist has no source of income, does not run any coaching classes, and holds no agricultural land in his name in the revenue records. He contended that the impugned order was illegal and arbitrary because the wife is a well-educated lady capable of earning her own livelihood.
To support this claim, the counsel relied on marksheets showing that the wife completed her M.A. in 2011 and her L.L.B. in 2024.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court noted that it was undisputed that the revisionist had failed to file an affidavit disclosing his income and assets.
Addressing the legal consequence of such non-disclosure, the Court observed:
“It is settled law that the courts can draw adverse inference against a husband, who despite giving ample opportunities fails to file an affidavit disclosing his income and assets in an interim maintenance plea as per Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 109 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.”
The Court emphasized the necessity of such disclosures, stating:
“The Family Courts’ reliance on the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities ensures a fair and informed assessment of interim maintenance, preventing potential concealment of income and financial misrepresentation.”
Regarding the quantum of maintenance, Justice Prashad noted that at the interim stage, the decision is based on the entitlement of the wife and cannot be grounded on an “exact arithmetical calculation.” The Court found merit in the wife’s claim for education expenses, observing that she had completed her L.L.B. in 2024, making her claim “prima facie made out.”
The Court further held that the revisionist failed to prove that the wife had any source of income or was engaged in any form of profitable employment despite her qualifications.
Decision
The High Court found no infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit. It ruled that the wife was rightly held entitled to adequate financial support to ensure a decent standard of living.
Upholding the amount awarded, the Court stated:
“The amount of Rs.3,500/- that has been directed to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent wife cannot be said to be on the higher side and is rather just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Consequently, the criminal revision was dismissed. The High Court clarified that the observations made in this order would not influence the trial court while adjudicating the matter finally on merits.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shyam Mohan vs. State of U.P. and another
- Case No: Criminal Revision No. 4929 of 2024
- Bench: Bench Garima Prashad
