The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a wife’s deliberate suppression of her actual income in maintenance proceedings requires a fresh evaluation of her alimony claims. Hearing a revision plea against a family court order, Justice Achal Sachdev set aside the monthly maintenance awarded to a wife who declared a “nil” income before the trial court while disclosing an annual income of over Rs 4.5 lakh in a separate High Court petition. The Court affirmed the maintenance for her minor son but remanded the wife’s claim back to the trial court for a fresh determination based on true financial disclosures.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the marriage of the parties, solemnized in 2010. Following marital discord and allegations of dowry demands and cruelty, the wife began residing at her parental home with her children. She subsequently filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah.
On July 16, 2024, the Family Court allowed her application, directing the husband to pay Rs 8,000 per month to the wife and Rs 5,000 per month to their minor son. Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed a criminal revision petition challenging the maintenance awarded to his wife. Simultaneously, the wife filed a separate revision petition seeking an enhancement of the maintenance amounts.
Arguments of the Parties
The husband’s counsel argued that the wife obtained the maintenance order by suppressing material facts. It was pointed out that in her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities filed before the Family Court—mandated by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha—the wife declared her income as “nil.” However, during the same period, she filed an affidavit in a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court, attaching a net worth certificate and Income Tax Returns (ITR) that showed an assessed annual income of Rs 4,81,310 for the assessment year 2022-23. The husband, who runs a restaurant, claimed an income of only Rs 30,000 per month and expressed his willingness to pay the maintenance awarded to his son, objecting only to the amount granted to the wife.
Conversely, the counsel for the wife denied any concealment. The defense argued that the wife had no independent source of income and relied on meager interest from fixed deposits made by her father, which was insufficient to sustain herself and her son. She also highlighted the cruelty she allegedly faced, pointing out that her father had lodged an FIR under Section 307 of the IPC against the husband and his family. She sought enhanced maintenance to cover her son’s medical, educational, and essential needs.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Sachdev noted that the trial court completely ignored the documentary evidence produced by the husband regarding the wife’s contradictory income statements. The Court emphasized that the mandatory affidavits introduced by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha
$$(2021) 2 SCC 324$$
were designed to curb concealment and speculative litigation.
Taking a strict view on the non-disclosure, the Court observed: “If a party suppresses material facts or furnishes false information, courts may draw an adverse inference against them, and conduct may also invite contempt proceedings or prosecution for perjury under Sections 191-193 I.P.C.”
However, the Court also balanced this by outlining the fundamental purpose of maintenance laws. “Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The provision is not punitive but remedial, ensuring that a wife, child or parent unable to maintain themselves is not left to penury,” the Court stated.
The judgment clarified that having an independent income does not automatically disqualify a wife from receiving financial support. The Court noted: “mere possession of some income does not ipso facto disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance, if such income is insufficient to sustain herself and her minor child in accordance with the standard of living enjoyed during the subsistence of marriage.”
Addressing the wife’s plea for enhanced maintenance, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, noting that while 25% of a husband’s net monthly salary is a broad benchmark for spousal maintenance, it is not a mandatory formula. The Court clarified that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot ordinarily be used to enhance maintenance without a proper evaluation of evidence and changed circumstances by the trial court.
The Decision
Finding that the Family Court failed to reconcile the contradictory income disclosures, the High Court partly allowed the husband’s revision petition. The Court set aside the Rs 8,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the wife and remanded the matter back to the Family Court for a fresh determination of her entitlement after properly appraising her income, assets, and liabilities.
The Court upheld the Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the minor son, directing the husband to continue paying this amount. The Family Court has been directed to pass a reasoned, comprehensive order within three months.
Case Title: Gaurav Verma Versus State of U.P. and 2 others
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 4251 of 2024
Bench: Justice Achal Sachdev
Date: May 29, 2026
