‘Not charity but right’: Allahabad High Court slams husband for ‘concealing’ income, hikes wife’s maintenance

Justice Dr Ajay Kumar-II enhanced the maintenance to be paid to the wife.

Scrutinising the husband’s affidavit, the high court found that he had intentionally concealed material particulars.

“The opposite party no. 2 has admitted himself to be a salaried person getting a salary of Rs 1,25,000 per month in hand i.e. he himself has admitted that after all deductions he is getting a net salary of Rs 1,25,000 which is his net salary. However, once again opposite party no 2 has not annexed requisite latest salary certificate, pay slip and bank account statement in which he is receiving his salary,” the court observed.

Cross pleas

• The court was hearing cross-criminal revisions filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance, and by the husband seeking setting aside of the family court order passed in December 2023.
• The wife had alleged that after their marriage in 2013, she was subjected to dowry harassment and was eventually thrown out of her matrimonial home during pregnancy.
• She further claimed that the husband, employed as an engineer, was earning nearly Rs 1.95 lakh per month but had concealed his actual income.
• It was argued that the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife and her minor son was not sufficient to maintain themselves and therefore prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs 75000.
• The husband, on the other hand, contended that the wife was professionally qualified in fashion designing and capable of maintaining herself.
• He also alleged that she had left the matrimonial home on her own despite his efforts to bring her back.

‘Sufficient reason for wife to live separately’

The court noted that a criminal case under Sections 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act was pending against the husband and his parents, which constituted sufficient reason for the wife to live separately.

“As far as reasons for the revisionist living separately is concerned, the learned trial Court has recorded a categorical finding on this issue and this Court being a Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also cannot substitute it’s own finding, in place of the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court on this issue in question, unless the finding is completely perverse,” the court observed.

Relying upon a catena of Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated that maintenance proceedings are intended to prevent destitution and ensure dignity for dependent wives and children.

“Provision for maintenance is a manifestation of the State’s commitment to safeguard weaker sections of society, particularly women and children, from neglect and economic deprivation within the protective ambit of Articles 15(3) and 39 of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.

The court noted that the husband, despite claiming that his wife was a highly qualified lady with a degree and was earning, no documentary evidence regarding her income was placed on record.

The court emphasised that merely because a wife is educated or capable of earning cannot by itself be a ground to deny maintenance unless there is evidence of actual income.

The court enhanced the maintenance payable to the wife to Rs 30,000 per month and to the minor son to Rs 17,500 per month from the date of the family court order.

The court observed that the husband cannot escape his legal and moral responsibility to maintain his son until he attains majority, adding that whatever disputes may exist between the husband and wife, the child should not be made to suffer.

The court held that a reasonable and sufficient amount was necessary for the child’s upbringing, including expenses towards education, food, clothing, residence and medical needs.