- By Surarika Das
- Tue, 02 Jun 2026 09:03 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
Legal Correspondent | Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday stated if a wife deliberately hides her actual income during maintenance proceedings, her alimony claim must be re-evaluated. The High Court had transferred the case to the trial court. The case was hear by Justice Achal Sachdev.
What Is The Case?
The dispute stems from a marriage solemnised in December 2010. Frequent disputes, dowry demands, and allegations of cruelty prompted the wife to move to her parents' home with her children. She subsequently filed a maintenance application before the Additional Family Judge, Etawah.
The family court granted her application, directing the husband to pay eight thousand rupees per month to his wife and five thousand rupees per month to their minor son. However, the husband was not convinced by the order. The husband therefore filed a criminal revision petition seeking an increase in the maintenance amount. The defendant argued that his wife had obtained the maintenance order by concealing significant information.
ALSO READ: Casteism not annihilated even after 75 years of independence, says Supreme Court
In the affidavit filed before the family court, detailing her assets and liabilities, the wife had declared that she had no source of income, while she had enclosed a net worth certificate and income tax returns for the same period in the affidavit filed in the habeas corpus petition.
On the contrary, the wife's counsel denied concealing any facts and argued that the wife had no independent source of income and was dependent on the meager interest on the fixed deposits made by her father.
ALSO READ: Dead UP Cop’s Parents Sue Daughter-In-Law For Maintenance | Here’s What Allahabad HC Said
What Did The Court Say?
Citing the fundamental purpose of maintenance laws, the High Court stated that Section 125 of the CrPC is a measure of social justice aimed at preventing destitution and wandering from door to door. This provision is not punitive rather reformative, ensuring that a wife, child, or parent unable to support themselves is not left in abject poverty. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Court stated that 25 percent of a husband's net monthly salary is a broad criterion for spousal maintenance but is not a mandate.
The court partially granted the husband's revision petition, finding the family court's failure to reconcile conflicting income information. The Family Court was directed to pass a reasoned and comprehensive order within three months, including consideration of the wife's petition for an increase in maintenance.