Maintenance Case | Wife Concealed Her Job And Income From Court, Yet Wanted Husband To Pay: Allahabad High Court Denies â‚ą5,000 Monthly Claim
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskUTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court set aside a Family Court order directing a husband to pay his wife â‚ą5,000 per month as maintenance after finding she concealed key facts about her employment and income.
Justice Abdul Shahid allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Manoj Kumar Rana, challenging the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Baghpat.
The Court found contradictions between the wife's statements and her employment documents. It held that a person seeking relief from a court must honestly disclose material facts.
Manoj Kumar Rana married Preeti, also known as Preeti Pundir, on 15 March 2021 according to Hindu customs.
Following matrimonial disputes, the wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, seeking â‚ą20,000 per month as maintenance. The Family Court partly allowed her application and directed the husband to pay â‚ą5,000 monthly.
The husband challenged the order before the High Court, arguing that his wife was employed as a Sales Manager earning approximately â‚ą40,000 per month.
He also submitted that he had lost his job during the COVID-19 lockdown and was unemployed. He alleged that his wife wanted to live independently and had filed a false FIR against him and his brother in Noida.
The wife, however, alleged dowry-related cruelty. She claimed that her husband's family spent approximately â‚ą10 lakh on the marriage but remained dissatisfied with the dowry.
Regarding her employment, she stated that she had worked between 2017 and 2022 and resigned on 30 June 2022. She produced a company relieving letter dated 1 July 2022 to support her claim.
During the proceedings, the High Court noticed several inconsistencies.
Before the trial court, the wife had stated that she stopped working five to six months after marriage. However, her own relieving letter showed that she continued working until June 2022.
During cross-examination, she stated that she had left her employment but had not resigned. She also denied signing the resignation letter.
The husband produced additional company records, including birthday greetings dated 20 November 2022 and employment anniversary communications referring to six and eight years of service, including a communication dated 16 August 2025.
The High Court relied on these documents to conclude that the wife had continued working as a Sales Manager even after her claimed resignation date.
The Court also considered a letter dated 13 November 2021, in which the wife said she did not wish to live with her husband and wanted a divorce.
After examining the evidence, the High Court concluded that the wife had concealed material information about her employment and income from both the Family Court and the High Court.
The Court emphasised that litigants must approach the judiciary with honesty and cannot expect relief after suppressing relevant facts.
Read Also:- How Courts Decide Maintenance? Deciding Factors for Maintenance.
Consequently, the High Court held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance from her husband in these circumstances and set aside the Baghpat Family Court's order of â‚ą5,000 monthly maintenance.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application in This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 125 CrPC | Allows a wife unable to maintain herself to seek monthly maintenance, subject to statutory conditions. | The wife claimed â‚ą20,000 monthly. The Family Court awarded â‚ą5,000, which the High Court set aside. |
| Section 397 CrPC | Provides revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality, correctness or propriety of certain lower-court orders. | Relevant to the husband's challenge through criminal revision. |
| Section 401 CrPC | Defines the High Court's powers when exercising criminal revisional jurisdiction. | Relevant to High Court review of the maintenance order. |
| Section 19(4), Family Courts Act, 1984 | Provides for High Court examination of certain Family Court orders passed under Chapter IX CrPC. | Relevant to the legal framework for challenging a Family Court maintenance order. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Manoj Kumar Rana vs. State of U.P. and Another |
| Case Number | Criminal Revision No. 5654 of 2024 |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Coram | Hon’ble Justice Abdul Shahid |
| Judgment Reserved On | 14 September 2026 |
| Judgment Pronounced On | 7 October 2026 |
| Petitioner / Revisionist | Manoj Kumar Rana (Husband) |
| Respondent No. 1 | State of Uttar Pradesh |
| Respondent No. 2 | Smt. Priti Pundir (Wife) |
| Advocate for Husband | Shivam Tiwari |
| Advocates for Respondents | G.A., Shams Uz Zaman |
| Original Case | Case No. 36 of 2022, Smt. Priti vs. Manoj Kumar Rana |
| Lower Court | Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat |
| Lower Court Order Date | 6 September 2024 |
| Maintenance Awarded | â‚ą5,000 per month |
| High Court's Finding | The wife concealed material facts regarding her continued employment and earnings and was not entitled to maintenance. |
| Final Judgment | Family Court's maintenance order set aside; husband's criminal revision allowed. |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Wife concealed her employment: The High Court found serious contradictions in her claims about employment and income.
- Husband ordered to pay â‚ą5,000: Despite his wife's employment history, the husband was directed to pay monthly maintenance.
- Husband exposed the contradictions: Employment records challenged the wife's claim that she had resigned from her job.
- Concealment cannot be rewarded: The Allahabad High Court set aside the maintenance order after examining the wife's financial disclosures.
- Husbands deserve financial justice too: Maintenance must be decided on truthful financial disclosures, not concealed income.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.