Trial Court Can't Place Entire Burden Of Proving Husband's Income On Wife: High Court

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a family court erred in placing the burden on a wife to prove her husband's income while deciding a maintenance claim, observing that such proceedings are social welfare measures and the husband is duty-bound to disclose his financial status.

Justice Gajendra Singh observed that maintenance proceedings are social welfare proceedings and that it is for the husband to make full disclosure of his financial status.

The judge remarked that while income may be concealed, a person's social and financial status cannot be hidden and that a husband cannot escape his obligation to maintain his wife and child in accordance with their standard of living.

Setting aside the family court's order, the High Court granted the wife monthly maintenance of Rs 30,000 and enhanced the maintenance for the couple's 10-year-old son from Rs 20,000 to Rs 30,000.

The family court had earlier rejected the wife's claim and awarded only Rs 20,000 per month to the child.

The case arose from an order passed by the family court, Indore, in January this year.

The wife had sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging cruelty, economic abuse and neglect after the couple began living separately in early 2024.

She had claimed that her husband, an MTech and MBA graduate working as deputy general manager with a private company in Indore, had substantial income from employment, business and other assets.

The husband denied the allegations, contending that the wife had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and had lodged a false criminal case against him. He also claimed to have limited income and financial liabilities.

The High Court held that the family court erred in concluding that the wife was residing separately without sufficient reason.

It observed that an FIR alleging cruelty and dowry harassment had already been registered against the husband and that the wife was solely taking care of the minor child.

In such circumstances, the finding that she had no justifiable reason to live separately was unsustainable.

HC larger bench holds hearing in key case in Indore

A five-judge larger bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday continued hearing arguments in a petition related to Nitin Enterprises vs Urban Administration and Development Department and Others but did not pass any interim order.

The bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal, Justice Subodh Abhyankar, Justice Vinay Saraf and Justice Alok Awasthi, heard arguments from senior advocates appearing for the petitioner, the State government and other respondents.

After hearing the submissions in part, the larger bench adjourned the matter for further arguments. The case has been listed for hearing on July 7 at 2.30 pm.

The court did not make any observations on the merits of the dispute or issue any interim directions during Monday's proceedings.