The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that after more than a decade of marriage and while caring for a 10-year-old child, the wife could not simply be presumed to be earning enough to deny her maintenance. (Image generated using AI)The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said that a husband cannot avoid paying maintenance by hiding his income if his lifestyle tells a different story and directed a man to pay his estranged wife and minor son Rs 60,000 monthly maintenance.Justice Gajendra Singh was hearing a woman’s plea against the January 19 order of the family court, which rejected Rs 3 lakh maintenance claim and ordered Rs 20,000 instead. The maintenance was sought towards the upkeep of the woman and their minor son. Setting aside a family court order, the high court held that the husband must maintain his family according to the standard of living he enjoys.“The marital obligations of the wife are not confined only to the husband, but it is also towards the minor child…The source of income may be concealed, but the status cannot be concealed. The husband cannot escape his liability to maintain the wife and minor child in accordance with their standard of living,” the high court said on June 30.The couple married on May 6, 2013, but faced problems. The wife accused her husband of “ill-treatment, economic abuse and neglect”, leading to the couple’s separation. She subsequently filed a maintenance application on March 9, 2024, seeking Rs 3 lakh monthly maintenance. Justice Gajendra Singh awarded Rs 30,000 per month as maintenance to the wife and increased the maintenance to the minor son from Rs 20,000 to Rs 30,000 per month. (Image enhanced using AI)Before the family court, the wife claimed that her husband was an M Tech and MBA graduate working as deputy general manager with a private firm, drawing a monthly sum of Rs 2.5 lakh. She also alleged that he operated a private company, owned several properties and vehicles and earned rental income.The husband denied the allegations, claiming that his wife had left the matrimonial home on February 17, 2024, without any valid reason. He alleged that she had lodged a false criminal case against him and had prevented him from meeting their son. He also argued that the wife was an engineering graduate who was capable of earning independently.High court disagreesThe family court concluded that the wife was residing separately without sufficient cause because the husband had filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights and she was unwilling to resume cohabitation.Story continues below this adIt also accepted the husband’s claim that he earned only about Rs 60,000 per month as a director of his company and had significant financial liabilities. Based on these findings, it denied maintenance to the wife and awarded only Rs 20,000 per month to the child.The high court, however, held that this approach was legally flawed. Justice Singh noted that the wife was taking care of the minor child and had already lodged an FIR against the husband alleging offences including cruelty, assault, criminal intimidation and dowry-related offences.Calling it “perverse”, the ruling rejected the family court’s reasoning that the woman had left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and the husband had initiated restitution of conjugal rights proceedings.High Court’s reasons to reject man’s claimSerious flaws in the manner in which the family court assessed the husband’s financial position.The entire burden was wrongly placed upon the wife to prove the husband’s source of income.It is not an adversarial litigation; rather, it is a social welfare proceeding.The trial court ought to have pressed the husband to disclose all facts about his income.Husband’s educational qualifications and employment tell a different story.Wife could not simply be presumed to be earning enough to deny her maintenance.The court directed Rs 60,000 monthly maintenance to be paid from the date of filing the plea. It also ordered that any amount already paid by the husband would be adjusted against his liability and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the family court for compliance.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More