Back
Husband's Low-Income Plea Crumbles: Delhi HC Upholds Maintenance Amid Hidden Wealth Clues
In a stark reminder that financial transparency is non-negotiable in maintenance disputes, the has upheld an interim maintenance award of ₹13,000 per month to a wife and her two minor daughters under the . Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed the husband's claim of earning just ₹12,000 monthly—below Delhi's minimum wages—citing his failure to disclose key details about past business ventures and investments.
A Marriage Sour, Leading to Legal Tussle
The saga began with the marriage of Dinesh Kumar and Neeti, blessed with daughters born in and . Cracks appeared early: Neeti alleged she was ousted from the matrimonial home in after refusing a sex determination test during her second pregnancy, amid claims of dowry harassment and bias over girl children. The couple separated, with Neeti filing for maintenance under in (awarding ₹7,000 ) and in , demanding ₹3 lakh monthly.
Trial court pegged Dinesh's income at his admitted ₹12,000, granting ₹3,000 additional interim maintenance. Appellate court hiked it to ₹6,000 extra (total ₹13,000). Cross-petitions followed: Dinesh cried foul over excess, Neeti decried inadequacy.
Wife Exposes 'Phantom Employee' Facade; Husband Clings to Salary Slip
Neeti's counsel painted Dinesh as a prosperous proprietor of M/s Lalaji Plastic, earning ₹8-10 lakh monthly, backed by old bank statements showing hefty transactions, mutual fund dividends, and tax-saving investments worth over ₹1 lakh in . She flagged his post-summons pivot to "supervisor" at M/s Jeet Engineering Works, recent photos of the plastic business allegedly still running, and unreported bank accounts at Punjab National Bank.
Dinesh countered via written submissions: no domestic violence by him; business shut by government in -17; genuine ₹12,000 salary evidenced by appointment letter, salary slips, and bank credits from ; Neeti earns ₹30,000 from tuitions as a graduate; existing ₹7,000 CrPC maintenance strains him. He denied property or vehicle ownership.
Drawing Adverse Lines: Court's Deep Dive into Disclosures
Justice Sharma meticulously sifted records, noting undisputed facts: marriage, kids with Neeti, her nil proven income. Dinesh's ₹12,000 claim rang hollow—a graduate ex-businessman below minimum wages? Bank statements revealed pre- business profits (~₹40-45k monthly), investments signaling surplus cash, and ITR-4 forms (for business income) clashing with salaried claims. His "appointment letter" was a mere offer from , with first salary credits later.
Echoing Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar (2025 SCC OnLine Del 7272), the court invoked the principle from Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan ( ) 5 SCC 705 and : able-bodied husbands can't dodge maintenance via non-disclosure; courts impute baseline earning via minimum wages. No cogent proof closed the plastic firm or explained dormant accounts— sealed it.
The court imputed Dinesh's income at no less than ₹20,000 monthly, with no other dependents.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
"where a person withholds vital information, a presumption arises against him that had he disclosed the information, the same would have been adverse to him."
"the husband appears to have withheld material information regarding his actual income and financial status. The material placed on record thereforeindicates that the husband has not made a full and candid disclosure of his financial position."
"despite being a graduate and having earlier run a proprietorship firm, [his] claim... does not appear to be credible... the income of the husband cannot be assessed at less than ₹20,000/- per month."
"the wife and the two minor children... are entitled to interim maintenance in the sum of ₹13,000/- per month from the date of filing."
Verdict Locks In ₹13,000—With a Set-Off and Trial Caveat
Petitions dismissed: ₹13,000 upheld (₹7,000 CrPC set off against it). Dinesh pays from petition filing date till trial end, covering food, shelter, education, meds. Final quantum awaits evidence-led trial; this interim stands unless varied
As news summaries note, this reinforces: no hiding behind sparse affidavits. For future cases, it arms courts to probe suspiciously lean incomes, especially with business histories, ensuring wives and kids aren't shortchanged amid rising costs.
