Back
Holds Spouse Concealing True Income Cannot Benefit from Reduction of Child Maintenance
A husband who deliberately hides his real earnings cannot turn that concealment into a shield against his obligation to support his child , the ruled while restoring ₹9,000 monthly for a minor daughter under the .
Justice Uday Kumar set aside an appellate order that had slashed the girl’s maintenance by ₹1,000 without any supporting rationale, despite the appellate court itself having recorded that the father failed to disclose his occupation or produce salary slips to back his claim of earning only ₹15,000 per month.
A Fractured Home, A Legal Battle
The case arose from a petition filed by Sanjibani Das Samanta under before the . Seeking for herself and her minor daughter under , she pointed to evidence that her husband had previously drawn a salary of 5,000 Dirhams per month (roughly ₹1.08 lakh) while working with in the UAE.
In , the Magistrate awarded ₹7,000 per month to the wife and ₹9,000 per month to the daughter, taking of soaring prices and the husband’s “sound financial background.”
Aggrieved by the quantum, the husband appealed under . The , while partially allowing the appeal, reduced the daughter’s maintenance from ₹9,000 to ₹8,000. The wife then sought revisional relief before the High Court.
Contentions Before the High Court
Petitioner’s Argument
Counsel contended that the appellate order was “whimsical” and “perfunctory.” He argued that the Sessions Judge had no justification for reducing the daughter’s maintenance without examining any change in the husband’s financial circumstances, especially after noting that the husband had concealed his true income. A person who once earned ₹1.20 lakh per month could not be presumed to have suffered a dramatic downward spiral without evidence.
Respondent’s Defense
, for the husband, defended the reduction as a minor adjustment within judicial discretion. However, he pragmatically consented to the petitioner’s request for expeditious trial and final disposal of the main maintenance application.
Court’s Reasoning: Why Silence on Income Is Not a Pass
Justice Uday Kumar found a “” in the appellate judgment. The Sessions Judge had correctly acknowledged the husband’s failure to disclose his occupation or produce salary slips—conduct that “attracted regarding concealment of income”—but then “paradoxically” proceeded to reduce the child’s maintenance without any intelligible rationale or reference to a material change in circumstances.
Relying on the ’s principles in , the High Court reaffirmed that maintenance proceedings carry a and that the shifts to the earning spouse under when he deliberately conceals his actual earnings.
“An appellate court cannot reward by scaling down maintenance without supporting rationale.”
The court held that reducing a minor child’s without reasoned justification “directly contravenes the touchstone of a .”
Key Observations from the Bench
- On the burden of proof: “When an able-bodied spouse deliberately conceals his actual earnings, the shifts heavily onto him under to disclose his true financial capacity.”
- On the appellate court’s error: “The learned Sessions Judge committed a grave error of record and law by interfering with the well-reasoned discretion of the trial court.”
- On welfare of the child: “Reducing a minor child’s without supporting reasons directly contravenes the touchstone of a .”
The Final Decision
Justice Uday Kumar allowed the revisional application (C.R.R. 1625 of 2024) and quashed the appellate order of . The order passed by the , on October 29, 2022, was restored in full, meaning the husband must pay ₹9,000 per month for the daughter (plus ₹7,000 for the wife) from the date of filing of the original application, with arrears to be cleared in instalments as earlier directed.
The trial court has been directed to expedite the final hearing of the main maintenance case and conclude it preferably within six months.
The ruling makes clear that an earning spouse who hides his income cannot turn that concealment into a negotiating tool to reduce his child’s maintenance. The law, the court emphasized, will not allow to prevail over the of a child to .
