A husband’s income tax return (ITR) revealed a sharp decline of around 50% in his annual taxable income, but he can’t use this as an excuse to skip maintenance payments to his estranged wife, as ruled by a family court in Gurgaon. The court has ordered the husband to pay Rs 2 lakh by the 10th of every month to his wife.
The husband claimed that his net annual salary fell to roughly Rs 36 lakh, and he also has home loan liabilities of around Rs 1.7 crore, in addition to his duties towards his parents. Nevertheless, the family court ruled that he must still pay Rs 2 lakh monthly maintenance to his estranged wife.
The wife had sought Rs 4 lakh per month for herself and the children, along with another Rs 7.5 lakh towards litigation expenses, as reported by the Times of India.
The couple had tied the knot in Lucknow on July 12, 2005, and became parents to twins. As per the TOI report, the wife had sought Rs 4 lakh monthly maintenance from her husband, who is employed as a senior executive at Deloitte.
In the recent plea submitted by the husband, he claimed that there has been a sharp dip in his annual income, and that he has already been paying around Rs 19.2 lakh yearly towards the children’s boarding education fees. He said that his net annual pay has dropped to Rs 36 lakh and he also has liabilities of Rs 1.7 crore.
The court found the explanation for the substantial fall in his income unsatisfactory since he was still doing the same job. Therefore, it took into account his previous earning capacity while determining the maintenance amount. Moreover, Additional Principal Judge Poonam Kanwar pointed out that paying for school fees did not cover all his financial obligations.
The court acknowledged that the children had other daily expenses and the wife’s maintenance had to be assessed separately.
Manmeet Kaur, Partner at Karanjawala & Co., told ET Wealth Online that this ruling may carry two precedential implications for interim maintenance proceedings.
“This signals for future cases that where a spouse seeking to avoid maintenance relies on a decline in declared income without a credible explanation, particularly where employment status and seniority remain unchanged, Courts may look into earlier earning capacity rather than the latest income disclosure as the baseline for computing maintenance.”
Secondly, this ruling reinforces the principle that at the interim stage, disputed factual allegations, such as undisclosed assets, foreign travel expenditure, or concealed income, cannot be treated as established and therefore cannot be used to deny maintenance at the interim stage, she added.
According to the husband’s counsel, the wife was highly educated and capable of earning money. With this, he also claimed that she didn’t disclose some assets, including a PPF account and fixed deposits. The counsel also cited her foreign travels, including a trip to Georgia.
The wife’s advocate, on the other hand, suggested that the husband’s income dip was unexplained as he continued working in the same senior position at Deloitte. He further claimed that the husband’s financial capacity was significantly more than that reflected in his latest income disclosure.
His income tax returns showed taxable income of about Rs 2 crore in the assessment year 2023-24 and Rs 2.9 crore in 2024-25. However, the ITR for assessment year 2025-26 showed a sharp drop in his income to around Rs 1 crore. According to the wife, the husband had not fully disclosed his mutual fund investments worth around Rs 5 crore among other assets.
The wife had been left without regular financial support and had to prematurely liquidate FDs and take a gold loan to meet household expenses, according to her counsel.
The court rejected the three contentions raised by the counsel representing the husband to defeat or reduce the wife’s claim. It categorically held that an educated wife cannot automatically be denied maintenance. Education does not, in and of itself, establish that a spouse has actual income or is presently employed, explained Kaur.
Further, on the allegation regarding the wife’s foreign travels and undisclosed assets, the court’s reasoning was procedural and evidentiary; the court held that these allegations are disputed questions of fact that required evidence and, therefore, at the interim stage, maintenance could not be denied.
The family court ordered the husband to pay Rs 2 lakh maintenance per month to his estranged wife and the children by the 10th of every month.
Additionally, dismissing the wife’s educational qualification argument, the court also directed the husband to pay Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses and to continue to bear the children’s educational costs fully.
