Can claiming low salary save a husband from maintenance? Delhi High Court gave a strong answer in this case. Court found hidden financial details and upheld ₹13,000 monthly support order—full facts may surprise readers.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that a husband cannot avoid paying maintenance by claiming low income while hiding real financial details. The Court said that if a person does not give full and honest income records, the court can assess earning capacity on its own basis.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma relied on the earlier judgment in Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar (2025). In that case, it was held that an able-bodied man cannot defeat a maintenance claim by hiding basic financial information. The court can draw an adverse view and estimate at least minimum earning capacity.
The High Court upheld interim maintenance of ₹13,000 per month in favour of the wife and two minor children under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
This matter came before the Court after both husband and wife challenged the appellate court order. The husband said the maintenance amount was too high, while the wife said it was too low considering his actual financial position.
The Court noted that the husband claimed he was earning ₹12,000 per month as a supervisor. However, records showed that he had earlier run a business and had also made investments in mutual funds and tax-saving schemes.
The Court also found mismatch in his income statements. It noticed that income tax returns filed by him did not match his claim of being only a salaried employee.
It was further noted that the wife had pointed out bank accounts and financial records linked to the husband and his firm. Despite this, the husband failed to give any proper explanation about those accounts or how the business activities had stopped.
“No satisfactory explanation has been offered regarding the earlier accounts maintained in his name and in the name of the firm or the circumstances under which they were closed. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the observations of the learned Appellate Court that the husband appears to have withheld material information regarding his actual income and financial status,”
After considering all facts, the High Court assessed the husband’s income at not less than ₹20,000 per month and upheld maintenance of ₹13,000 per month.
Explanatory Table Of Laws And Sections Mentioned
| LAW / SECTION | FULL NAME | MEANING | HOW USED IN THIS CASE |
| Section 12, PWDV Act | Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Allows an aggrieved woman to file complaint seeking reliefs like protection, residence, maintenance etc. | Wife filed domestic violence complaint and sought maintenance. |
| Section 29, PWDV Act | Appeal Provision under DV Act | Allows challenge to Magistrate’s order before Sessions Court. | Wife challenged Trial Court maintenance order. |
| Section 125 Cr.P.C. | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Quick remedy for wife/children/parents to claim maintenance if neglected. | Wife earlier got ₹7,000 ad-interim maintenance. |
| Interim Maintenance | Temporary maintenance during pending case | Financial support till final decision. | Court upheld ₹13,000 monthly total support. |
| Adverse Inference | Legal principle | If a party hides documents/facts, court may presume truth is against that party. | Applied due to non-disclosure of husband’s finances. |
| Income Affidavit | Sworn financial disclosure statement | Shows income, expenses, assets, liabilities. | Court found husband’s disclosures doubtful. |
| Minimum Wages Principle | Statutory wage benchmark | Court may assess earning capacity if real income hidden. | Used to reject ₹12,000 low-income claim. |
| Set Off / Adjustment | Deduction of already paid amount | Prevents double payment in two proceedings. | ₹7,000 earlier order adjusted against ₹13,000 total. |
Case Details
| PARTICULARS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Dinesh Kumar v. Neeti & Ors. and connected matter Neeti v. Dinesh Kumar |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Case Numbers | CRL.M.C. 6628/2022 & CRL.M.A. 25818/2022 with CRL.M.C. 3998/2023 |
| Bench | Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma |
| Judgment Reserved On | 19.01.2026 |
| Judgment Pronounced On | 04.04.2026 |
| Judgment Uploaded On | 04.04.2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:2457 |
| Petitioner in First Matter | Dinesh Kumar |
| Petitioner in Connected Matter | Neeti |
| Respondents | Neeti & Ors. / Dinesh Kumar |
| Counsel for Wife | Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate |
| Counsel for Husband | None appeared during hearing |
| Final Outcome | Delhi High Court upheld ₹13,000 interim maintenance |
Key Takeaways
- If a man’s financial records are incomplete, courts may presume hidden income and increase maintenance liability.
- Claimed low salary may be rejected if past business history or old investments exist, even without final trial evidence.
- Multiple maintenance proceedings can financially pressure husbands through parallel litigation routes.
- Allegations against men can shape interim orders early, while full evidence is usually tested much later.
- Every husband must maintain perfect income records, tax filings, bank trail and asset proof, or risk adverse orders.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
