Failure By Wife To Produce Recent Salary Slips Can Lead To Denial Of Maintenance: Delhi High Court
A revision petition was filed by a woman against the denial of maintenance by a Family Court.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a court may draw adverse inference against a wife seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if she fails to submit her latest salary slips or financial records, particularly when claiming financial hardship or insufficient income.
A revision petition was filed by a woman against the denial of maintenance by a Family Court.
A Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “As the primary ingredient for grant of maintenance to a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – i.e. her inability to maintain herself – has not been satisfactorily proved, in absence of clear and reliable evidence of financial hardship, the claim of the wife becomes speculative and cannot be sustained.”
Advocate M.R. Chanchal appeared for the Petitioner, and Advocate Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the Respondents.
Background
The Family Court had previously granted maintenance to the couple’s daughter, who is in the custody of the mother, but denied maintenance to the wife, citing concealment of her actual income and failure to produce recent salary slips.
The wife's December 2016 salary slip showed an income of ₹33,052. She later claimed she was earning only ₹10,000 per month as a temporary teacher in a U.P. government school after her alleged termination. However, no salary certificate or documentation was produced to substantiate this claim.
The husband contested the wife’s claim, arguing that she had deliberately withheld material financial information and presented a misleading picture of her income to secure maintenance.
Finding
Agreeing with the Family Court’s conclusion, the High Court noted, “No recent salary certificate was placed before the learned Family Court despite opportunities given by the learned Trial Court. She also did not offer any plausible explanation in the evidence for withholding recent salary details. The learned Family Court, thus rightly reached to a conclusion that such omission, without any cogent explanation, casts a doubt on the genuineness of her claim and justifies an adverse inference against her.”
The Court further held that in absence of evidence proving genuine financial hardship, the claim becomes speculative and cannot stand legal scrutiny under Section 125 of the CrPC.
While the husband also challenged the maintenance granted to their daughter as being excessive, the Court dismissed this argument, noting that the amount granted was approximately one-third of his income, which is reasonable and not excessive.
The Court reiterated, “The law is settled that a child's right to maintenance is independent of the disputes between her parents, and the father is bound to maintain the children… Section 125 of the Cr.P.C is a beneficial provision, premised on a moral obligation of husband and father, and intended to prevent, inter alia, the wife and children from being subjected to the adversities of vagrancy and destitution.”
In light of the evidence and the wife’s conduct, the Court upheld the Family Court’s denial of maintenance to the wife while affirming the maintenance for the daughter. It emphasized the importance of transparency and credibility when seeking relief under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Cause Title: X & Anr. v. The State & Anr., [2025:DHC:7930]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate M.R. Chanchal
Respondents: Advocates Naresh Kumar Chahar, Advocates Puja Mann, Vipin Kumar Yadav, Nischaya Nigam and Akshay Handa
