Trial Courts Should Direct Filing Of Income Affidavits In Maintenance Cases, Draw Adverse Inference Against Defaulting Party: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that, in maintenance cases, the trial court is under an obligation to direct the contesting parties to file their respective affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities, and failure to comply must be taken adversely against the defaulting party.

The Court partially allowed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband, setting aside the spousal maintenance awarded by the trial court due to the deliberate suppression of income by the wife.

It was observed that the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities is the fundamental bedrock for determining fair maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), rather than a mere procedural formality.

The Bench of Justice Achal Sachdev observed, "Enhancement necessarily requires proof of changed circumstances, involving adducing and evaluating fresh evidence...Revisional courts lack the power to conduct such an evaluation. Where the applicant before the trial court has made only an oral submission without leading any cogent or clear evidence regarding the net income of the opposite party, it becomes virtually impossible for the trial court to assess the maintenance amount with reasonable certainty so as to award just maintenance. In such a situation, affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities filed by the applicant and the opposite party assume crucial importance. The trial court is under an obligation to direct the contesting parties to file their respective affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities, and failure to comply must be taken adversely against the defaulting party."

Advocate Shreyas Srivastava appeared for the Revisionist, while Advocate Tanisha Jahangir Monir appeared for the Opposite Party.

The Court emphasized that when a trial court ignores documentary evidence of an applicant's admitted income and reaches an independent conclusion unsupported by the record, the revisional court is fully justified in intervening to correct the error.

Brief Facts of the Case

The marriage between the applicant-wife and the opposite party-husband was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born to the couple. The applicant-wife alleged that right from the inception of the marriage, her in-laws and husband subjected her to persistent cruelty, harassment, and demands for dowry, specifically pressuring her to persuade her father to transfer real estate property into the husband’s name.

It was further asserted that despite her father providing financial assistance, monthly expenses, and substantial cash to satisfy the demands, the matrimonial cruelty escalated. Eventually, the applicant-wife was allegedly threatened and ousted from her matrimonial home along with her children, forcing her to take shelter at her parental house. Consequently, she instituted an application seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on the ground of willful neglect and desertion by her husband.

The Family Court partly allowed the application, directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance to both the wife and the minor son. Aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred separate criminal revision petitions before the High Court; the husband assailed the legality of the maintenance awarded to the wife, while the wife sought an enhancement of the quantum of maintenance for herself and her son.

Contentions of the Revisionist-Husband

The husband strenuously argued that the applicant-wife had suppressed material facts from the trial court regarding her financial status. It was submitted that she possessed a substantial independent income, as evidenced by her certified income tax returns and asset disclosure documents filed in related judicial proceedings, which proved she was fully capable of maintaining herself.

The husband ran a modest restaurant from premises owned by his father and earned a limited monthly income, which was lower than the recorded income of the wife. The husband raised no objection to supporting his minor son and expressed his absolute willingness to pay the maintenance awarded in favour of the child, but vehemently opposed the grant of alimony to the wife. It was further alleged that the wife had voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and that her family had engineered false, severe criminal cases against the husband and his elderly parents solely to exert undue pressure upon him.

Contentions of the Opposite Party-Wife

The wife counter-argued that she was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty owing to insatiable dowry demands, which ultimately culminated in her being forcefully expelled from the matrimonial home. It was asserted that the wife had no independent source of livelihood or financial sustenance and was entirely dependent upon the charity of her father to survive and rear her minor child.

Observations of the High Court

The High Court observed that the prevailing judicial guidelines, particularly those crystallized by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, made it mandatory for both parties in maintenance proceedings to file a truthful affidavit of disclosure regarding their assets, income, and liabilities. It was noted that this stringent requirement was introduced to curb concealment, inflated claims, and speculative litigation. The High Court emphasized that the affidavit was not a mere formality but formed the bedrock for determining fair maintenance, and any breach by way of suppression or misstatement carried severe procedural and penal consequences.

Upon perusal of the record, the High Court observed a glaring inconsistency on the face of the record regarding the financial status of the applicant-wife. It was noted that while she filed an affidavit before the trial court declaring her income as "nil," she had contemporaneously filed a sworn affidavit along with her net worth certificate and income tax returns in a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court showing a substantial assessed annual income. The High Court further observed that the trial court completely overlooked, failed to discuss, and did not advert to this material documentary evidence produced by the husband, which amounted to a manifest non-application of judicial mind.

The High Court clarified the legal position that the mere possession of some independent income does not ipso facto disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., provided such income is insufficient to sustain her in accordance with the lifestyle enjoyed in her matrimonial home. However, it observed that in view of the contradictory stands taken by the wife across different judicial forums, the trial court was under a legal obligation to undertake a deeper scrutiny of the evidence and reconcile the disclosures. The failure of the trial court to evaluate these vital financial indicators rendered the impugned order highly vulnerable.

Regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court observed that its powers were strictly supervisory and not appellate in nature. It was noted that a revisional court could examine the legality, propriety, or jurisdictional correctness of an order but could not ordinarily substitute its own factual determination to enhance or reduce the quantum of maintenance. The High Court further observed that any modification or enhancement of maintenance fundamentally required proof of changed circumstances through the evaluation of fresh evidence, for which the parties possessed an alternative remedy before the trial court under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

"Even when both sides have furnished their affidavits, the court, while deciding the quantum of maintenance, must take into consideration the statements made therein and documentary evidence, if any, filed in support thereof. Absence of such consideration clearly indicates that the decision has been taken in haste, ignoring binding guidelines. Where the court has ignored admitted income and reached its own conclusion unsupported by the record, the revisional court may interfere, upset the finding on quantum, and correct the error", the Court said.

Consequently, the High Court observed that while there was no perversity or illegality in the trial court's order affirming the entitlement and quantum of maintenance awarded to the minor son, the portion of the order granting maintenance to the wife required total reconsideration.

The High Court concluded that the matter warranted a remand to the trial court for a fresh, reasoned determination of the spousal maintenance after a proper appraisal of the wife's actual assets, liabilities, and income in compliance with the settled guidelines.

Cause Title: HHHH v. State of U.P.[Neutral Citation:2026:AHC:123920]

Appearances:

Revisionist: Advocate Shreyas Srivastava

Opposite Party: Advocate Tanisha Jahangir Monir

Click here to read/download the Order