‘Tendency to downplay income in matrimonial disputes,…wife’s claims exaggerated in such cases’: Why Delhi court denied interim maintenance to woman lawyer

Monetary relief would be decided on merits on the conclusion of the trial, the court said.

“It has been observed in a catena of judgements that there is a tendency to downplay the income when a person is embroiled in a matrimonial dispute. Similarly, the claims made by the wife are also exaggerated in such cases,” JMFC Yadav said in her order dated September 25, which was recently made public.

The woman had moved an application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), which allows “an aggrieved person…or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person” to apply to the Magistrate “seeking one or more reliefs” under the Act.

The petitioner had sought interim maintenance. She stated that she had been living with her brother who had, however, asked her to move out after he had a child.

The affidavit also stated that the woman had worked with the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) on contract until October 2024, but was currently unemployed and dependent on her brother for sustenance.

However the court noted that the petitioner was a law graduate who had drawn a salary of approximately Rs 51,000 per month until October 2024, and had not presented “any material to show that she is unable to work now or that there is any genuine obstacle in seeking employment”.

The court said that the woman did not have a child, and “no such responsibility which may prevent her from working”. Her claim of “incurring monthly expenses of around Rs 30,000 and rent…is not supported by any document… On the other hand, several credit entries are seen in her bank account post March 2024, which remain unexplained,” the court said.

“All this”, the court said, “casts doubt on her assertion that she is presently without any source of income”.

After going through the income affidavit of the husband, who was represented by advocate K K Sharma, the court noted that he was earning around Rs 35,000 per month, and had an old mother who was dependent on him.

The wife had claimed that the husband had concealed his income, and had several other sources of income such as ancestral property, pension of his mother, agriculture, and the stock market.

From the homepage

EC announces Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in 12 states, UTs

What happened behind the scenes – and a screen – when Vijay met families of Karur stampede victims?

Energy trade principles applied selectively: Jaishankar’s swipe at US after meeting Rubio