Wife Failed To Prove Husband’s ₹1 Lakh Income, Was Capable Of Earning Herself, Yet Husband Cannot Escape Maintenance Liability: Vadodara Family Court

Can a wife’s claim about her husband’s income be accepted without specific proof? A Vadodara Family Court found no concrete evidence of the alleged ₹1 lakh monthly income, yet held that the husband could not escape his maintenance responsibility simply because the wife could earn.

GUJARAT: A Family Court in Vadodara has directed a husband to pay ₹7,000 per month as maintenance to his wife from the date of her application, noting that no specific evidence established the wife’s claim that he earned ₹1 lakh per month.

The Family Court, Vadodara, passed the order on April 23, 2025, in a maintenance application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The application had been filed on June 16, 2022.

The couple married on August 4, 2002, in Surat and had a daughter. The wife stated that after marriage they initially lived with the husband’s joint family in Surat. Later, after his employment shifted to Vadodara, she also moved there. She alleged that the marital relationship subsequently deteriorated and levelled allegations concerning the husband’s conduct towards her.

The wife alleged that her husband travelled frequently for business and that his behaviour towards her changed. She further made allegations regarding his personal relationships and claimed that she was subjected to quarrels and ill-treatment during the marriage.

The husband contested the allegations. His case included assertions about matrimonial disputes between the parties and circumstances surrounding their separation. The record also showed that the parties had been living separately since 2021.

An important financial aspect of the dispute concerned the husband's actual income. The wife claimed that he was earning around ₹1 lakh per month. However, the court noted that no specific evidence was produced to establish that figure.

The court also considered material showing that the husband had previously supported the household financially. Documents on record indicated that after the couple shifted separately to Vadodara, the husband had provided financial assistance for household expenses and paid their daughter's tuition fees. During cross-examination, the husband admitted that after the maintenance proceedings were instituted, he had not paid maintenance to the wife.

The wife, on the other hand, was not treated as a person completely incapable of earning. The court observed that she was capable of earning some income for her livelihood. However, it held that this fact by itself did not absolve the husband of his legal responsibility to maintain her.

The court observed:

“If the applicant is doing some work and maintaining herself, the respondent cannot escape the responsibility of maintenance merely because of the applicant's income.”

This became an important part of the court's reasoning. In other words, the wife's ability to earn was relevant, but the court did not treat it as an automatic bar to maintenance.

At the same time, the court did not simply accept the ₹1 lakh monthly income claimed against the husband. It noted that the husband had not filed his income-tax return and that his exact income was therefore not available on record. The husband’s affidavit mentioned income of around ₹30,000 per month, whereas the wife claimed ₹1 lakh.

Since specific evidence proving the wife's higher figure was absent, the court estimated that the husband's monthly income could be around ₹30,000 to ₹40,000.

This distinction is significant. A matrimonial proceeding may contain a much higher allegation regarding a husband's earnings, but the amount claimed does not automatically become his legally established income. The court must still examine the material before it and determine a reasonable figure.

After considering both parties' financial position and the circumstances of their separation, the Family Court concluded that ₹7,000 per month was a reasonable amount of maintenance.

The court partly allowed the wife's application and ordered the husband to pay her ₹7,000 every month from the date of filing of the maintenance application. It further directed that any maintenance already paid to her in another judicial proceeding would be adjustable against this amount.

The husband was also directed to pay ₹5,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The wife claimed the husband earned ₹1 lakh monthly, but specific evidence did not establish that figure.
• Against the ₹1 lakh claim, the court assessed the husband’s income at only around ₹30,000–₹40,000 per month.
• Despite the much lower income assessment, the husband was still directed to pay ₹7,000 per month from the date of the application.
• The wife’s ability to earn did not free the husband from his maintenance responsibility.
• A high-income figure alleged against a husband does not become a proven fact merely because it is claimed.