The High Court at Allahabad has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking the expedited disposal of a maintenance case against his wife, terming the litigation “vexatious” and “born out of false pretenses.” Justice Vinod Diwakar, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, imposed a compensatory cost of ₹15,00,000 on the petitioner-husband for suppressing material facts and subjecting his wife to systemic economic depletion.
The court observed that the husband, an able-bodied practicing Advocate, had not only concealed a prior maintenance order in his favor but had also diverted substantial personal loans taken by his wife for his own “luxurious life” and “alcoholic drinks.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner and the respondent were married on May 18, 2019. At the time, both were preparing for competitive examinations. Shortly after, the respondent secured a government job as an Additional Private Secretary at the High Court of Allahabad. The petitioner, despite being a law graduate and a registered Advocate, remained unemployed.
Disputes arose, leading to multiple litigations. The husband filed a maintenance application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah. He then approached the High Court with a prayer to expedite these proceedings, claiming he had no independent source of income and was suffering from various health issues due to the stress of litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
For the Petitioner: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondent-wife had spoiled his career by filing false FIRs and a divorce petition. It was contended that the petitioner has to travel long distances for court dates and has developed serious health issues. He maintained that he is an “unemployed youth” with no source of income for survival.
For the Respondent: Counsel for the respondent-wife presented a starkly different narrative. She submitted that the petitioner comes from a politically influential family and was a civil contractor before joining the legal profession. She alleged that the petitioner is a “compulsive liar” who took two personal loans totaling over ₹25 lakhs from the respondent’s salary account under the guise of purchasing land, but instead “exhausted all the loan amount… on alcoholic drinks and leading luxurious life.”
The respondent further informed the court that she is currently paying a monthly EMI of ₹26,020 for these loans and was already paying the husband ₹5,000 per month as interim maintenance under a separate order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court conducted a thorough examination of bank statements, affidavits, and records from the Family Courts.
1. Concealment of Material Facts: The Court found that the petitioner had sworn false affidavits. He failed to disclose that he was already receiving ₹5,000 per month in maintenance from his wife and that the very proceedings he sought to “expedite” had already been stayed by a coordinate bench of the High Court.
2. Legal Standing of Husband’s Claim: The Court noted that Section 144 BNSS (equivalent to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) primarily contemplates maintenance for wives, children, and parents. Citing B. Clement v. Mcthel Thanga Annam and Malleshwaramma v. G.S. Srinivasulu, the Court held that “the legislature would not have intended to clothe the husband with the right to claim maintenance from his wife under this Chapter.”
3. Economic Abuse and “Luxury Litigation”: The Court took a grave view of the financial exploitation of the respondent. Justice Diwakar observed:
“Economic abuse within marriage operates in insidious ways—through control over income, coercive appropriation of assets, and the gradual erosion of financial independence.”
The judgment highlighted that the respondent’s financial resources were “systematically depleted” by the husband. The Court described the petitioner as a “well-built, shameless youth, who has no respect for the hard work, sincerity, and loyalty” of his wife.
The Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, characterizing it as lacking bona fides. To address the “marital exploitation” and “unjust enrichment,” the Court ordered the following:
- Compensatory Cost: The petitioner must pay ₹15,00,000 to the respondent-wife within six weeks.
- Realization of Cost: If the petitioner fails to pay, the District Magistrate, Etawah, is directed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. The Sub-Registrar has been ordered to ensure no third-party interest is created in the petitioner’s properties until the recovery is complete.
- Perjury Inquiry: The Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj, is directed to inquire into the filing of false affidavits by the petitioner.
- Expedited Divorce: The trial court is directed to expedite the pending divorce proceedings under Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, with a mandate for in-camera proceedings to preserve the dignity of the parties.
The Court concluded by stating that the law must evolve to recognize that “justice within marriage is not merely symbolic but materially enforceable.”
Case Details
- Case Title: Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh
- Case No.: Matters Under Article 227 No. 12198 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Vinod Diwaka
- Date: April 23, 2026
