Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
Conscious Act Of Suppression, Not Inadvertent Error: Delhi High Court Dismisses Husband’s Challenge To Maintenance After He Conceals Second Marriage And Children
|The Court said the conduct of the husband in concealing material facts during the trial and attempting to bring them on record only at a belated stage, without any convincing explanation or supporting documents, reflects that he had not approached the Court with clean hands.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a man against an order awarding maintenance to his wife and minor child under Section 125 CrPC, finding that he had deliberately suppressed his second marriage and children born out of that relationship during the trial and made an unjustified late attempt to bring them on record.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “In this Court’s opinion, this conduct of concealing material facts during the trial and attempting to bring them on record only at a belated stage, without any convincing explanation or supporting documents clearly reflects that the petitioner did not approach the learned Family Court with clean hands.”
The Court added, “A litigant who suppresses material facts, misleads the Court, and fails to come forward with candour during trial cannot be allowed to benefit from such conduct at a later stage.”
Advocate S.N. Khan appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 were married according to Muslim rites and customs, and a son was born out of wedlock. The Respondent alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, including physical violence and neglect during pregnancy, and returned to her parental home soon thereafter. She filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and her son, claiming that she was financially dependent on her parents and that the Petitioner was employed as an assistant vice president at a private firm with a substantial salary.
The Petitioner claimed he was only a freelancer with a low monthly income and denied all allegations of cruelty. He filed an affidavit of income and expenditure but made no mention of any second marriage or children.
It was only after the conclusion of evidence and before final arguments that he filed an additional affidavit stating that he had entered into a second marriage in 2019 and had three children from that relationship. He claimed his second wife had died recently during childbirth and that this fact should be considered while deciding maintenance.
The Family Court rejected the belated affidavit for lack of supporting documents and inconsistencies in birth records. The affidavit was never challenged and attained finality. The Family Court then awarded ₹10,000 monthly maintenance each to the wife and son. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court found that the Petitioner’s conduct during trial proceedings reflected a clear and deliberate suppression of facts relevant to his financial liabilities.
The Bench noted, “…the petitioner had deliberately concealed his second marriage and the alleged birth of three children from the said marriage throughout the trial proceedings. The petitioner, as he claims, had contracted another marriage on 07.01.2019, and yet, even while filing his affidavit of assets, income and expenditure shortly thereafter on 14.01.2019, he had made no mention of this second marriage.”
The Court observed that this omission was not an oversight but a calculated attempt to withhold material facts, stating, “This omission cannot be regarded as an inadvertent error, but rather a conscious act of suppression of a material fact, especially when such information directly pertained to the question of his financial capacity and obligations, which were under scrutiny in the maintenance proceedings.”
The Court also noted that the affidavit disclosing the second marriage was filed only after the death of the alleged second wife, and after the conclusion of recording of evidence. “Notably, even in the affidavit of evidence filed on 21.08.2023, he made no reference to having entered into a second marriage or having fathered children from that relationship. It was only belatedly… that he sought to bring this information on record, through an additional affidavit”, it added.
The Court held that the Family Court rightly rejected the additional affidavit due to its timing and the absence of credible proof, observing, “This belated attempt to introduce a new factual narrative, after the closing of evidence and when final arguments were to be heard, rightly invited scepticism from the learned Family Court.”
On the issue of quantum of maintenance, the Court held, “The grant of maintenance in the sum of ₹20,000/- per month in favour of the respondents cannot be said to be unjust, arbitrary, or excessive, particularly in the absence of any reliable and consistent evidence placed by the petitioner to the contrary.”
Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of the Family Court, and dismissed the revision petition.
Cause Title: Syed Danish Azeem v. Smt. Nazia Parveen @ Nazia & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5198)