The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed a man to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 60,000 to his estranged wife and minor son, ruling that a husband cannot avoid his financial obligations by hiding his income when his lifestyle and credentials indicate otherwise.
Justice Gajendra Singh issued the order while setting aside a January 19 family court decision that had rejected the wife’s initial claim. The High Court ruled that a husband is legally required to support his family in accordance with the standard of living he personally enjoys. Justice Singh observed that while specific sources of income may be hidden, a person’s social status cannot be concealed, and marital obligations extend to the care of the minor child.
The new maintenance amount of Rs 60,000 is effective retrospectively from March 9, 2024, the date the woman first filed her application. The court directed that any maintenance payments already made by the husband during the dispute must be adjusted against this final liability. A copy of the ruling has been sent to the family court for compliance.
Errors Identified In The Family Court Order
The High Court described the family court’s original decision to deny the wife maintenance as legally flawed and perverse. Justice Singh noted that the lower court had incorrectly placed the entire burden of proving the husband’s income on the wife.
According to the ruling, maintenance applications are social welfare proceedings rather than adversarial litigation. Consequently, the trial court should have actively compelled the husband to disclose all relevant facts regarding his actual earnings. The High Court also rejected the assumption that the wife’s educational background automatically meant she was earning enough to be denied financial support.
Dispute Over Earnings And Qualifications
The legal battle involved highly conflicting claims regarding the husband’s financial position. In her March 9, 2024 application, the wife requested Rs 3 lakh in monthly maintenance, asserting that her husband holds M.Tech and MBA degrees and works as a deputy general manager at a private firm with a monthly salary of Rs 2.5 lakh. She further alleged that he runs a private company, owns multiple properties and vehicles, and receives rental income.
The husband contested these claims, arguing that his actual monthly income was only about Rs 60,000 in his capacity as a company director, and pointed to significant financial liabilities. He also argued that because his wife holds an engineering degree, she is fully capable of earning her own living and did not require maintenance.
The family court had originally accepted the husband’s financial claims and granted only Rs 20,000 per month specifically for the minor child while completely denying maintenance to the wife.
Background Of The Marital Dispute
The couple married on May 6, 2013, but eventually separated. The wife alleged she left the household due to neglect, economic abuse, and ill-treatment. She subsequently filed an FIR against her husband detailing allegations of cruelty, physical assault, criminal intimidation, and dowry-related offenses.
The husband claimed his wife left the matrimonial home on February 17, 2024, without any valid reason, filed false criminal charges, and prevented him from visiting their son. He subsequently filed a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights.
While the family court concluded that the wife was living separately without a valid cause due to her refusal to resume cohabitation, the High Court rejected this conclusion, pointing to the serious criminal allegations and the fact that she is actively caring for their minor child.
