The Madhya Pradesh High Court has overturned a family court order granting a woman Rs 30,000 in monthly maintenance, ruling that the lower court failed to appropriately weigh her husband’s assessed earnings of Rs 1.5 lakh per month and his refusal to submit salary records.
Presiding on September 8, Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal heard a revision petition filed by the wife challenging the family court’s June directive, which had granted her Rs 30,000 per month effective from June 1, 2025. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking an upward revision of the amount as well as its enforcement from September 6, 2021, the date of her initial maintenance application.
Justice Bansal observed that after estimating the husband’s income at Rs 1.5 lakh a month, the family court was obligated to evaluate the claim under established legal principles—such as awarding one-fourth of the spouse’s earnings—and provide cogent reasons for capping the allowance at Rs 30,000.
Failure To Draw Adverse Inference
The High Court held that the family court erred by disposing of the interim maintenance plea without directing the husband to produce his salary slips or drawing an adverse inference against him for non-compliance.
According to the bench, trial courts must enforce disclosure requirements rigorously, even at the interim stage. Justice Bansal noted that an incomplete financial disclosure cannot be treated as valid compliance. The court affirmed that when a party ignores judicial directives to present salary documentation, presiding judges should consider drawing an adverse inference and, where appropriate, striking off the respondent’s defense.
Scrutiny Of Spousal Conduct
The judgment also addressed arguments regarding the conduct of both parties during the litigation. In April 2024, the family court had dismissed the wife’s application for interim maintenance on grounds that she was a BSc and MBA degree holder and had omitted mentioning that she was already receiving Rs 10,000 per month under the Domestic Violence Act.
Addressing this issue, the High Court held that while the wife’s initial omission was questionable, she later declared the Domestic Violence Act payments in a subsequent affidavit, thereby depriving the initial suppression of its legal weight. The court noted that while deception in a particular case may not necessarily amount to fraud, genuine fraud contravenes fundamental tenets of fairness and cannot be protected by procedural doctrines such as res judicata.
Timeline Of Matrimonial Dispute
The couple married on June 17, 2019, and separated on January 16, 2020. The woman initiated maintenance proceedings on September 6, 2021.
The matter faced procedural delays surrounding witness testimony. The family court closed the woman’s right to lead evidence on May 25, 2024. Following a revision plea, the High Court reinstated her opportunity to present evidence on August 1, 2025, which she concluded on September 22, 2025. The husband concluded his evidence on May 13, 2026, culminating in the family court’s June ruling that has now been set aside.
