‘Man’s income Rs 1.5 lakh’: MP High Court cancels Rs 30,000 monthly support for wife

The order noted that once the family court proceeded to assess the husband’s income at Rs.1.50 lakh per month, it was incumbent upon it to examine the claim of maintenance in the light of the settled principles and to assign appropriate reasons for fixing the amount of maintenance at Rs 30,000 per month instead of 1/4th of salary.

The court observed that since the family court itself had assessed the husband’s monthly income at Rs 1.5 lakh, it should either have obtained the relevant salary documents or considered an adverse inference against him for failing to produce them.

Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal pronounced the order on September 8.

Wife challenged maintenance amount

The couple got married on June 17, 2019, and have been living separately since January 16, 2020. She filed an application for maintenance on September 6, 2021, before the family court.

During the proceedings, the family court earlier noted that the woman was already receiving Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. It also noted that she was a BSc and MBA graduate and had not initially disclosed the existing maintenance. In April 2024, the family court, hence, rejected her application for interim maintenance.

The proceedings were then delayed due to issues concerning evidence. Her right to lead evidence was closed on May 25, 2024, but the high court, in a revision filed by the woman, granted her another opportunity on August 1, 2025. She completed giving her evidence on September 22, 2025, while the husband closed his evidence on May 13, 2026.

The family court ultimately passed an order in June this year, awarding the woman Rs 30,000 per month as maintenance from June 1, 2025. It assessed the husband’s monthly income at Rs 1.5 lakh. The woman challenged the amount and the date from which maintenance was awarded before the high court.

Husband failed to produce salary: Order

The court observed that although the wife’s conduct was questionable because she had initially suppressed that she was already receiving Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, this fact was later disclosed in her affidavit. Therefore, the suppression had lost its significance.

“In a given case, a deception may not amount to fraud,” the court said, adding that fraud is contrary to all principles of fairness and cannot be protected by principles of fairness, including res judicata (a matter already decided by a court).

At the same time, the court found fault with the husband’s conduct. The family court had directed him to produce his salary slip, but he failed to do so. It held that even at the interim maintenance stage, courts must ensure compliance with these disclosure requirements.

An incomplete affidavit cannot be treated as compliance, and where a party fails to produce documents despite a court direction, the court can draw an adverse inference and, in appropriate cases, consider striking off the defence.