Husband’s Source Of Income May Be Concealed But Not His Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court While Granting Maintenance To Wife & Child
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a criminal revision preferred against an order passed by the Family Court.
While observing that the source of income of the husband may be concealed, but his status cannot be concealed, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted maintenance to a wife and enhanced the maintenance already granted to a minor child.
The High Court was considering a criminal revision preferred against an order passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, whereby the claim for maintenance filed by revision petitioner/wife under Section 125 of the CrPC was rejected, while maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month was awarded only to the minor child.
The Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held, “The approach of the trial Court is not in accordance with law. The source of income may be concealed, but the status cannot be concealed. The husband cannot escape his liability to maintain the wife and minor child in accordance with their standard of living. Accordingly, this revision petition succeeds, and an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded in favour of revision petitioner No.1, and the maintenance awarded to revision petitioner No.2/minor child is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- per month to Rs.30,000/- per month, both effective from the date of application towards their maintenance.”
Advocate Shashank Sharma represented the Petitioners while Advocate Rajat Raghuwanshi represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The marriage between the first petitioner and respondent was solemnised in 2013, and a child was born. An application under Section 125 for CrPC was filed with allegations of ill treatment, extra marital affairs, economic abuse, and neglect of maintenance. A demand of Rs 3 lakh per month was made, submitting that husband is an M.Tech and MBA and receiving a salary of Rs 2,50,000 per month. It was further claimed that he ran a private company, possessed many properties and was earning a huge amount from rental income. The wife and minor child had also filed an application for interim maintenance.
The Trial Court rejected the claim for maintenance of the wife, holding that she was residing separately from the respondent/husband without sufficient cause. The Trial Court further recorded that the respondent/husband had instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, but the wife was not willing to cohabit with the respondent/husband. The trial Court recorded the finding that the respondent/husband was earning only Rs 60,000 and had many financial liabilities. Aggrieved thereby, the wife preferred the revision.
Reasoning
Considering the fact that the wife had been taking care of the minor child and an FIR against the respondent was already on record, the Bench stated that it could not be held that she was residing separately without sufficient cause.
“The marital obligations of the wife are not confined only to the husband but it is also towards minor child. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse only on the ground that the respondent/husband has preferred the application for restitution of conjugal rights, without appreciating the attending circumstances and the material available on record”, it added.
Dealing with the question of assessment of income of the husband/respondent, the Bench stated, “The order of the trial Court reveals that the entire burden was wrongly placed upon the wife to prove the husband’s source of income. It is not an adversarial litigation; rather, it is a social welfare proceeding. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have placed the burden upon the husband to disclose all material facts regarding his income.”
The Bench found that the husband is an M.Tech. and MBA working as DGM at EKI Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vijay Nagar, Indore and noted that while maintaining a child of 10 years, the wife cannot be presumed to be earning to disentitle her from maintenance. Thus, allowing the revision, the Bench granted Rs 30,000 in favour of the wife and enhanced the maintenance awarded to the minor child to Rs 30,000 per month.
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:17382)