Back
Allahabad HC Slaps ₹15 Lakh Penalty on Husband's Sham Maintenance Bid Against High Court Employee Wife
In a scathing rebuke of matrimonial manipulation, the dismissed a husband's petition under seeking to fast-track his maintenance claim under . Justice Vinod Diwakar not only threw out Ranjeet Singh's plea but imposed a hefty ₹15 lakh compensatory cost, citing false affidavits, concealed income, and the husband's exploitation of his wife's salary loans. The ruling underscores courts' growing intolerance for "luxury litigation" born of greed.
From Competitive Dreams to courtroom Nightmares
Ranjeet Singh and Neetu Singh married on , in , both unemployed and prepping for government jobs at the time. Neetu soon landed a plum role as Additional Private Secretary in the , even transferring to the Lucknow bench for marital convenience. But cracks emerged: Ranjeet allegedly coerced her into two personal loans—₹11.5 lakh in 2020 (repaid) and ₹13.56 lakh in 2022—from her salary account at SBI. He transferred nearly all to his accounts via UPI, splurging on alcohol and luxuries, leaving Neetu saddled with ₹26,020 monthly EMIs till 2028.
Tensions boiled over. Neetu accused Ranjeet of cruelty, filed FIRs (Case Crime Nos. 27/2023 under et al., and 43/2024 under ), and a divorce suit (Matrimonial Case 2504/2023). Ranjeet countered with a suit in and, crucially, maintenance applications—one under (granted ₹5,000/month interim plus ₹10,000 costs) and another under Section 144 BNSS in , which he sought to expedite here. Multiple writs, transfers, and stays ensued, with Ranjeet claiming unemployment despite being an enrolled advocate under senior and prior civil contracting income (ITR ₹4.7 lakh).
As reported in legal circles, the case highlighted a husband
"working as an advocate while claiming to be penniless,"
forcing his High Court-employed wife into loans he siphoned off.
Husband's Cry: "I'm the Victim, She's the Tyrant"
Ranjeet painted himself as a jobless youth humiliated by his earning wife, who allegedly filed false FIRs to derail his career, forcing 400-km court pilgrimages and health woes (BP, diabetes). No independent income, he said, surviving on loans from friends; sought maintenance as first-timer under Section 144 BNSS. Counsels stressed travel burdens and non-appearance by wife in proceedings.
Wife's Fierce Rebuttal: "Loans for Plot, Spent on Booze"
Neetu's team, led by , exposed Ranjeet's facade: political family (MP uncle, ex-Pradhan mom), construction biz, advocate practice. He controlled her banking, withdrew lavishly (₹5-49k daily), fled with her Vitara Brezza (stranding, worth crores in EMIs), demanded ₹10 lakh ransom. FIRs stemmed from abuse; his quash petitions failed. He concealed ongoing maintenance while swearing no prior claims. Amicus Curiae hammered false affidavits violating disclosure norms, urging perjury probe.
Dissecting Deceit: Court's Forensic Dive into Finances & Lies
Justice Diwakar pored over records—bank statements, ITRs, FIRs, stayed proceedings. Key findings: Ranjeet hid Section 24 award, stay; no plot bought, loans misused; able-bodied advocate from affluent family can't leech off wife. Section 144 BNSS targets wives/children/parents, not husbands ( B. Clement v. Mcthel Thanga Annam , ; Malleshwaramma v. G.S. Srinivasulu , ). Precedents like (affidavit mandate), (realistic costs) fueled ₹15L penalty for "economic abuse"—restitution for eroded independence.
The bench philosophized on marriage as equity, not exploitation, invoking and .
"The petitioner has sworn the affidavit stating that the contents... are true to his personal knowledge... concealed the fact that he has been getting monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- from the respondent-wife."
"The husband is disentitled to claim maintenance from his wife under 144 of BNSS, 2023."
"The equity demands the present petition is dismissed with the compensatory cost of Rs.15,00,000/- to be given to the respondent-wife."
Verdict with Teeth: Dismissal, Costs, and Fast-Track Directives
Petition dismissed as infructuous/bad-faith. ₹15L via DD to Registrar General within 6 weeks, recoverable as land revenue if default; DM to probe assets, block sales. ordered to expedite divorce (per ), review Section 24 order in 4 weeks, conduct in-camera trials, ensure wife security, quarterly reports. Perjury inquiry flagged.
This sets precedent against "crooks and liars" gaming family courts, deterring false claims amid rising matrimonial wars. For Neetu, partial justice; for Ranjeet, a costly wake-up.
