Back
Slaps Down 'Arbitrary' Maintenance Award: No High-Income Guesswork Without Proof
In a sharp rebuke to overreach in family courts, the has ruled that magistrates cannot arbitrarily presume a husband's lavish income just because he skips employment papers in maintenance battles under . Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma modified a Rs 20,000 monthly order to effectively nil, prioritizing the husband's uncontroverted low-income claim and prior domestic violence awards.
From Muslim Nikaah to Matrimonial Mayhem
The saga began with a Muslim marriage ( Shariyat rites) between the wife (1st party) and husband (2nd party, petitioner here). They lived together for about two years, welcoming a daughter in . Trouble brewed when the wife alleged the husband demanded Rs 10 lakh, then ousted her and the child in amid torture claims. She sought refuge at her parents' home, accusing him of zero support despite his supposed Rs 1.5 lakh monthly medicine business earnings.
The husband countered: no dowry demand, no cruelty—he said she bolted voluntarily on , spurning reconciliation attempts laced with threats. He portrayed himself as a humble pharmacist earning Rs 400 daily (Rs 12,000 monthly), now stretched thin by a second marriage, another child, and an aged mother.
Proceedings kicked off in (Case No. MCR-116/2021). After evidence from both sides—including witnesses who vaguely nodded to his "medicine dealings" but offered no business specifics—the magistrate sided with the wife, pegging maintenance at Rs 12,000 for her and Rs 8,000 for the child (total Rs 20,000 from filing date). The husband revised it to the High Court.
Wife's Push for Plush Payout vs Husband's Hand-to-Mouth Hustle
Wife's Arsenal : She painted him as a thriving medicine trader with a pucca house, claiming Rs 1.5 lakh monthly—no docs, just testimony. Witnesses echoed "businessman" vibes but skimped on details like shop name or ownership.
Husband's Defense : Denied riches, swore to Rs 12,000-15,000 monthly as a pharmacy salesman (not owner). Assets affidavit: no bank accounts (NIL), informal gig fears losing if boss testifies. Flagged a parallel case awarding her Rs 6,000 (Rs 4,000 her + Rs 2,000 rent)—unadjusted here. Second family obligations loomed large.
The magistrate bit on her claim, halving it to Rs 75,000 income via under (facts in his knowledge), slamming his "concealment."
Court's Razor-Sharp Rebuttal: Proof, Not Presumptions
Justice Sharma dismantled the order as "arbitrary" and "beyond jurisdiction." Key takedown: Failing informal employment docs or boss testimony doesn't trash the husband's assets affidavit (Rs 12-15k credible). No bank? Not concealment without contrary proof. Burden stays on claimant wife—she furnished zilch on his business.
Echoing Apex Court wisdom in Neha v. Rajneesh (2021) 2 SCC 324, parallel DV Act maintenance (Rs 6,000 unchallenged) must adjust against CrPC awards. With six dependents on slim earnings (Rs 2,500 each if split evenly), excess payout crumbles.
As legal outlets noted, this reinforces:
"mere failure of the husband in furnishing documents regarding his employment does not discredit his evidence about his income."
Key Observations
"Mere failure of the 1st party/husband to furnish documents regarding his employment, which may or may not exist as he appears to be having informal employment, does not necessarily discredit his evidence, as to his own income."
"It was entirely arbitrary on the part of the learned Magistrate to shift the upon the 2nd party to establish that his income per month did not amount to Rs 1,50,000/- or Rs. 75,000/- per month."
"Since there is nothing to dislodge the statement of the 2nd party/husband in his statement of assets and liabilities, that his income is Rs 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month, the same not being an improbable figure, the same has to be taken as the basis."
"The respondent/wife and the child are entitled to a total maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month... The said amount after adjustment with the maintenance awarded in the proceedings under the DV Act would therefore come to ‘NIL’."
Zero More Zeros: What the Ruling Means
The High Court zapped the Rs 20,000 award, capping total support at Rs 6,000 (wife Rs 4,000 + child Rs 2,000)—wiped clean post-DV adjustment. Rest of magistrate's findings (neglect, separate living grounds) stand.
This sets a precedent checkpoint: No wild income guesses in S.125 CrPC; claimants prove claims. Informal workers breathe easier, second families factor in. Future benches must tally overlapping reliefs, curbing double-dips and ensuring equity on real earnings—not whispers.
