Allahabad: <\/em>The Allahabad High Court<\/strong> has upheld an order granting interim maintenance<\/a> to a wife, including expenses for her education<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed that the wife\u2019s claim for education-related expenses was prima facie justified and could not be rejected at the interim stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> and demanded \u20b915,000 per month for studies, daily expenses, and medical needs, along with \u20b92,000 towards litigation costs<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She further alleged that the husband owned land, did farming on lease, and earned around \u20b940,000 per month from coaching classes. She submitted an affidavit stating that she was unemployed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From the husband\u2019s side, it was argued that he had no steady income and no agricultural land in his name<\/strong>. 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<\/strong>, and was capable of earning for herself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crucially, it was not disputed before the Court that the husband did not file any affidavit disclosing his income and assets.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to this lapse, the Family Court drew an adverse inference and directed him to pay \u20b93,500 per month as interim maintenance<\/strong>. The husband challenged this order before the High Court, hoping for relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court, however, took a strict view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It Observed-<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further explained that this principle flows from \u201cOrder 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> This made it clear that the legal burden was on the husband to disclose his financial position honestly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court stressed transparency and said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Family Courts\u2019 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While the husband maintained that the wife was capable of earning, the Court rejected this plea and recorded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cRevisionist has failed to prove that respondent wife had any source of income or she is engaged in any form of profitable employment.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also clarified that interim maintenance is not decided on exact calculations and stated, that<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This makes it difficult for husbands to challenge interim amounts purely on numerical grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the wife had completed her LLB in 2024<\/strong> and therefore held that \u201cher claim towards education expenses is prima facie made out.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Upholding the Family Court\u2019s order, the High Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On the amount awarded, the Court clearly said,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court also clarified that<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe court concerned will not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in this order while adjudicating the matter finally on merits.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table<\/h3>\n\n\n\n