The Allahabad High Court upheld interim maintenance for a wife’s education expenses and held that courts can presume income concealment if a husband fails to disclose financial details. The ruling shows how procedural presumptions can legally burden husbands even when income is disputed.
Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has upheld an order granting interim maintenance to a wife, including expenses for her education, while also reiterating that courts are empowered to draw an adverse inference against a husband who does not disclose his income and assets despite repeated opportunities.
The Court observed that the wife’s claim for education-related expenses was prima facie justified and could not be rejected at the interim stage.
A Bench of Justice Garima Prashad made these observations while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by the husband. The petition challenged an order of the Family Court directing him to pay interim maintenance to his estranged wife.The case arises from a marriage solemnised on 14.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC and demanded ₹15,000 per month for studies, daily expenses, and medical needs, along with ₹2,000 towards litigation costs.
The wife stated that due to dowry demands, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home and started living with her parents from 14.03.2022. She alleged that no maintenance was paid to her after separation.
She further alleged that the husband owned land, did farming on lease, and earned around ₹40,000 per month from coaching classes. She submitted an affidavit stating that she was unemployed.
From the husband’s side, it was argued that he had no steady income and no agricultural land in his name. He denied running any coaching classes. He also pointed out that the wife was well educated and had completed M.A. in 2011 and LLB in 2024, and was capable of earning for herself.
Crucially, it was not disputed before the Court that the husband did not file any affidavit disclosing his income and assets.
Due to this lapse, the Family Court drew an adverse inference and directed him to pay ₹3,500 per month as interim maintenance. The husband challenged this order before the High Court, hoping for relief.
The High Court, however, took a strict view.
“It is settled law that the courts can draw adverse inference against a husband, who despite giving ample opportunities fails to file an affidavit disclosing his income and assets.”
It Observed-
The Court further explained that this principle flows from “Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Section 109 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.” This made it clear that the legal burden was on the husband to disclose his financial position honestly.
The Court stressed transparency and said:
“The Family Courts’ reliance on the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities ensures a fair and informed assessment of interim maintenance, preventing potential concealment of income and financial misrepresentation.”
While the husband maintained that the wife was capable of earning, the Court rejected this plea and recorded:
“Revisionist has failed to prove that respondent wife had any source of income or she is engaged in any form of profitable employment.”
The Court also clarified that interim maintenance is not decided on exact calculations and stated, that
“The decision of learned Additional Judge on the aspect of quantum of interim maintenance is based on the entitlement of the respondent wife and it cannot be based upon exact arithmetical calculation at such stage.”
This makes it difficult for husbands to challenge interim amounts purely on numerical grounds.
The Court noted that the wife had completed her LLB in 2024 and therefore held that “her claim towards education expenses is prima facie made out.”
Upholding the Family Court’s order, the High Court observed:
“There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the respondent wife has been rightly held to be entitled to adequate financial support which should be provided to ensure decent standard of living for herself.”
On the amount awarded, the Court clearly said,
“The amount of Rs.3,500/- that has been directed to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent wife cannot be said to be on the higher side and is rather just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed.
The High Court also clarified that
“The court concerned will not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order while adjudicating the matter finally on merits.”
However, till the final decision, Interim maintenance is decided without strict financial verification, which can burden men before final adjudication. The husband remains bound to comply with the interim maintenance order, reflecting the legal vulnerability men face when procedural compliance is missed.
Explanatory Table
| Act & Section | Purpose of Law | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 125 Cr.P.C. | Provides monthly maintenance to wife, children, and parents who cannot maintain themselves. | Wife filed maintenance claiming no income and need for education and daily expenses. Interim maintenance of ₹3,500 was granted and upheld. |
| Order XIX Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Governs affidavits and truthfulness of statements made before court. | Court held that failure to file income affidavit allows adverse inference against the husband. |
| Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Burden of proving facts especially within personal knowledge lies on that person. | Husband failed to disclose income details; burden was on him to prove his financial position. |
| Section 109, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | New evidence law replacing Evidence Act principles on burden of proof. | Used as supporting legal basis for drawing adverse inference for non-disclosure. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Shyam Mohan v. State of U.P. and Another
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 4929 of 2024
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Garima Prashad
- Date of Judgment: January 19, 2026
- Counsel for Revisionist (Husband): Anil Kumar Dubey
- Counsel for Respondent (State): Govt. Advocate
Key Takeaways
- If a husband misses even procedural steps like filing an income affidavit, courts may presume guilt and fix maintenance against him.
- At the interim stage, courts usually accept the wife’s claims at face value, while the burden of proof lies heavily on the man.
- A wife’s education or professional degree does not automatically reduce a man’s maintenance liability.
- Interim maintenance is decided on “entitlement,” not strict financial calculation, leaving men with limited defence.
- Small monthly amounts still become long-term legal pressure until final judgment, exposing men to prolonged financial vulnerability.
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.