Able-Bodied Husband Can't Evade Maintenance by Concealing Income; Rajasthan HC Enhances Wife's Award Under S.125 CrPC - 2025-08-27

Rajasthan High Court Enhances Maintenance for Wife, Cites Husband's Evasive Conduct and Concealment of Income

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling on spousal maintenance, has enhanced the monthly maintenance awarded to a wife from ₹4,000 to ₹7,000. Justice Sandeep Shah observed that an able-bodied husband cannot evade his moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife by concealing his income or making contradictory statements. The court dismissed the husband's petition challenging the existence of the marriage and partially allowed the wife's plea for enhancement.

Case Background

The matter involved cross-petitions filed by Smt. Sunita Devi (the wife) and Sumit Bishnoi (the husband) against a Family Court order dated January 18, 2024. The Family Court had granted Smt. Sunita Devi ₹4,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), effective from the date of her application in 2015.

The wife sought an enhancement of this amount, claiming her husband's income was substantial (around ₹1,15,000 per month from ancestral land and other work). The husband, conversely, challenged the order entirely, denying that the marriage was ever solemnized and claiming he was forced into a compromise after the wife filed an FIR under Section 376 IPC against him.

Arguments of the Parties

Smt. Sunita Devi (the Wife) argued that the marriage took place on March 3, 2014, and they lived together as husband and wife. She presented evidence including photographs and pointed to multiple inconsistencies in the husband's and his father's testimonies. Her counsel contended that the husband deliberately concealed his true income, which included earnings from ancestral agricultural land and his job as a bus conductor. The awarded maintenance of ₹4,000 was argued to be insufficient for her to maintain a dignified life.

Sumit Bishnoi (the Husband) vehemently denied the marriage, claiming he was tricked into signing documents and forced into a compromise. His counsel argued that the Family Court had initially dismissed the wife's claim in 2017 for failing to prove the marriage and that the subsequent reversal was based on the same evidence without proper reasoning. He claimed to have no income and stated his father had disowned him, contradicting his later affidavit where he listed his parents as dependents.

High Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and cross-examinations from the Family Court proceedings. Justice Shah noted several key admissions and contradictions that proved fatal to the husband's case.

On the Existence of Marriage: The court upheld the Family Court's finding that a valid marriage existed between the parties. The judgment highlighted crucial pieces of evidence:

"Rather, the respondent himself has admitted that at the time when he married the petitioner, there was no other person present. Thus, the fact of marriage has been emphatically admitted by the respondent."

The court also pointed to the husband's admission of living with the petitioner for four months and an affidavit from the husband's father (Shri Hanuman Bishnoi) which acknowledged the relationship and consented to its registration. The inconsistencies in the statements of the husband and his father, coupled with the wife's firm testimony, led the court to conclude:

"Thus, this Court concurs with the finding given by the learned Family Court as far as the fact of marriage being solemnized between the petitioner and respondent is concerned. Thus, there is no substance in revision petition filed by the respondent and the same deserves dismissal."

On the Quantum of Maintenance: Regarding the enhancement of maintenance, the court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. (2021) . Justice Shah observed that the Family Court had correctly found that the husband had deserted the wife and had the capacity to earn, but failed to provide reasoning for the modest award of ₹4,000.

The High Court found that the husband had deliberately concealed his income. The wife's affidavit stated he earned ₹10,000 per month as a conductor, an averment that went unrebutted. The court also considered his share in ancestral agricultural property as the sole son. The judgment noted:

"An able-bodied husband must further be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and he cannot take the stand that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family. This fact, coupled with the respondent’s own admission that the petitioner was not having any income or any property whatsoever, is a relevant consideration..."

Based on these factors, the court concluded that an enhanced amount was justified.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the husband's revision petition (No. 304/2024) and allowed the wife's petition (No. 390/2024) to the extent of enhancing the maintenance. The court directed Sumit Bishnoi to pay Smt. Sunita Devi ₹7,000 per month from the date of her original application (November 5, 2015). The husband was ordered to clear the arrears within three months.