Can a husband be burdened with huge maintenance merely because he could not produce salary documents?
The Gauhati High Court says No, holding that the wife failed to prove the husband’s alleged high income and maintenance annot be fixed on assumptions or adverse inference alone.
GAUHATI: The Gauhati High Court recently passed an important judgment in a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC and held that courts cannot arbitrarily assume a husband’s income without proper evidence.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma reduced the maintenance awarded to the wife and child from ₹20,000 per month to ₹6,000 per month after finding that there was no reliable proof supporting the wife’s claim that the husband earned ₹1.5 lakh per month from a medicine business.
The dispute arose after the wife filed a maintenance case alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty after marriage and was eventually forced to leave the matrimonial home with her minor daughter. She claimed that the husband demanded ₹10 lakh from her family and later stopped maintaining both her and the child.
According to the wife, the husband was running a medicine business and earning nearly ₹1.5 lakh every month.
The husband denied all allegations and stated before the Court that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home despite repeated efforts by him and village elders to bring her back. He further stated that he was only working as a salesman in a pharmacy and earning around ₹400 per day, which came to nearly ₹12,000 to ₹15,000 per month.
Earlier, the trial court had granted ₹12,000 per month to the wife and ₹8,000 per month for the child. However, the High Court found that the wife had failed to produce any documentary evidence proving that the husband owned a pharmacy business or earned the income alleged by her. The Court also noted that even her witnesses could not provide details about such business.
While examining the matter, the High Court observed:
“Mere failure of the 1st party/husband to furnish documents regarding his employment, which may or may not exist as he appears to be having informal employment, does not necessarily discredit his evidence”
The Court further stated:
“Non-examination of the owner of the pharmacy is also not a factor to be taken into account, inasmuch as the employee may not be in a position to drag the employer to the witness box for fear of losing his employment.”
Criticising the approach adopted by the Magistrate, the High Court held:
“It was entirely arbitrary on the part of the learned Magistrate to shift the burden of proof upon the 2nd party to establish that his income per month did not amount to Rs 1,50,000/-or Rs. 75,000/- per month.”
The High Court also noted that the maintenance already awarded under the Domestic Violence Act proceedings had not been properly adjusted despite the Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh Vs. Neha requiring adjustment of maintenance granted in different proceedings.
After considering the husband’s disclosed income, his responsibility towards his second wife, child and aged mother, the High Court held that the wife and child together would be entitled to only ₹6,000 per month in total, including ₹2,000 for the child.
Since the same amount had already been granted in the DV Act proceedings, the Court held that no additional maintenance remained payable under Section 125 CrPC after adjustment.
Accordingly, the Gauhati High Court modified the earlier order and partly allowed the husband’s revision petition, reiterating that maintenance orders must be based on actual evidence and not assumptions regarding income.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | Relevance In This Case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance provision for wife, children and parents | Wife sought monthly maintenance under this section |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Law granting protection and monetary relief to women | Wife had already received maintenance under DV proceedings |
| Section 106 Indian Evidence Act | Facts within personal knowledge must be proved by that person | Used regarding husband’s income disclosure |
| Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 | Supreme Court ruling on adjustment of maintenance in multiple cases | High Court ordered adjustment of maintenance amounts |
| Adverse Inference Principle | Negative inference can be drawn for withholding evidence | Trial court applied it against the husband |
| Maintenance Adjustment Principle | Double maintenance benefit is not permitted | Existing DV maintenance was adjusted |
Case Details
- Case Title: Petitioner v. The State of Assam & Anr.
- Court: Gauhati High Court
- Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. No. 307/2024
- Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
- Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:6332
- Date of Judgment: 08 May 2026
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner: Mr. B.C. Das and Mr. S.H. Rahman
- For Respondent: Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, Mr. P. Borthakur, Mr. N.Z. Choudhury and Mr. N.A. Mazarbhuiya
Key Takeaways
- A husband’s income cannot be assumed merely because a high earning claim is made without documentary proof.
- Men working in informal jobs cannot be forced to produce impossible standards of salary and employment documentation.
- Maintenance granted in multiple proceedings must be properly adjusted to prevent double financial burden on husbands.
- Courts must consider a man’s complete financial responsibilities, including aged parents, second family and dependent children.
- Allegations regarding hidden income, business ownership or earning capacity must be supported by actual evidence, not assumptions or exaggerated claims.
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.
