HUSBAND CAN CONCEAL SOURCE OF INCOME, BUT NOT HIS FINANCIAL STATUS: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT GRANTS MAINTENANCE TO WIFE & CHILD:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that while a husband may conceal the exact source of his income, he cannot hide his overall financial status and lifestyle. The court granted maintenance to the wife and enhanced the amount awarded to the minor child, emphasizing the husband’s legal responsibility to support his family according to their standard of living.

A Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the wife against an order of the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore. The Family Court had earlier rejected the wife’s claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC while awarding Rs 20,000 per month only to the minor child.

The High Court observed that the trial court’s approach was not in accordance with law. It noted that the source of income may be concealed, but the husband’s status cannot be hidden. The husband cannot escape his liability to maintain his wife and minor child in line with their standard of living. Accordingly, the court awarded Rs 30,000 per month to the wife and enhanced the minor child’s maintenance from Rs 20,000 to Rs 30,000 per month. Both amounts are payable from the date of the application.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 2013, and they have one minor child. The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC alleging ill-treatment, extra-marital affairs, economic abuse, and neglect of maintenance responsibilities. She claimed that her husband, who holds M.Tech and MBA degrees, earns around Rs 2.5 lakh per month, runs a private company, owns multiple properties, and receives substantial rental income. She had demanded Rs 3 lakh per month as maintenance.

The trial court rejected the wife’s claim, holding that she was living separately without sufficient reason. It noted that the husband had filed proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, which the wife was unwilling to accept. The court assessed the husband’s income at only Rs 60,000 per month and cited his financial liabilities.

In revision, the High Court took a different view. It observed that the wife has been looking after the minor child and that an FIR was already registered against the husband. Therefore, it could not be concluded that she was residing separately without justification. The court pointed out that a wife’s marital obligations extend not only to her husband but also to the minor child. The trial court’s finding was perverse as it relied heavily on the restitution application without considering the overall circumstances and evidence.

On the question of income assessment, the High Court held that the trial court had wrongly placed the entire burden on the wife to prove her husband’s income. It clarified that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are social welfare proceedings, not adversarial litigation. The trial court should have required the husband to disclose all relevant facts regarding his income and assets.

The Bench noted that the husband is an M.Tech and MBA degree holder working as Deputy General Manager at EKI Energy Pvt. Ltd. in Vijay Nagar, Indore. It further observed that a wife caring for a 10-year-old child cannot be presumed to have sufficient independent income to disqualify her from receiving maintenance.

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court directed the husband to pay Rs 30,000 per month to the wife and Rs 30,000 per month to the minor child, both effective from the date of filing the application.