MADHYA PRADESH<\/em>: The Madhya Pradesh High Court <\/a>has held that a Family Court<\/a> acts illegally when it accepts an employed spouse’s claimed income without supporting pay slips while presuming the other spouse’s income without evidence.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal <\/strong>passed the order in a criminal revision filed by the husband against the maintenance order dated July 8, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balaghat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court had directed the husband to pay \u20b910,000 per month to his wife<\/strong> and \u20b95,000 per month to their minor son<\/strong> under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband challenged the order and argued that the Family Court had not correctly examined the actual income of both parties. His salary slip showed a monthly income of \u20b924,332<\/strong>, but the Family Court presumed that he was earning \u20b950,000 per month<\/strong> merely because he was working as a Marketing Manager.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife was employed as a Library Assistant in Government Jatashankar Trivedi College, Balaghat. In her assets and liabilities affidavit, she stated that her monthly income was \u20b96,000. However, she did not file any salary slip to support this figure. Even her lawyer admitted before the High Court that no pay slip had been produced before the Family Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court found no fault with the Family Court\u2019s conclusion that the wife had sufficient cause to live separately. However, it found serious errors in the manner in which the parties\u2019 incomes were assessed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn my considered opinion, in absence of any pay slip of the respondent 1\/wife, the Family Court has committed an illegality in accepting the income of the respondent 1\/wife to be Rs.6,000\/- p.m. on the basis of assertion in the affidavit filed by the respondent 1\/wife and even in presence of the pay slip of the petitioner\/husband, has committed an illegality in presuming the income of the petitioner\/husband to be Rs.50,000\/- p.m.<\/strong>\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court referred to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in the case of \u00a0Rajnesh v. Neha<\/a>,<\/em><\/strong> which requires parties in maintenance cases to file detailed affidavits disclosing their income, assets and liabilities. An employed person must also produce relevant salary certificates, current pay slips, employer certificates, Form 16, income-tax returns and bank statements, wherever applicable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court\u2019s decision in the case of Smt. Geeta v. State<\/em><\/strong>, <\/em>where maintenance was denied to a wife who failed to produce recent salary documents and did not properly prove that she was unable to maintain herself<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Madhya Pradesh High Court <\/strong>said that the Family Court should have directed both the husband and the wife to file their current salary slips<\/strong> before deciding the maintenance amount. Salary documents were necessary to determine their true financial position fairly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court could not accept the wife\u2019s claimed salary of \u20b96,000 without proof while ignoring the husband\u2019s available salary slip and increasing his income to \u20b950,000 on the basis of his designation alone. Such unequal assessment can impose a financial burden on a husband without reliable evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court further said that if the Family Court was doubtful about the photocopy of the husband\u2019s pay slip, it could have directed him to produce a fresh or original salary slip instead of completely ignoring it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court consequently set aside the maintenance<\/a> order<\/strong> and sent the matter back to the Family Court for a fresh decision under Section 125 CrPC<\/strong> after properly examining the financial documents of both parties. The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on August 18, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Until the Family Court passes a fresh order, the husband must pay \u20b910,000 per month from July 1, 2026<\/strong>. He must also clear the earlier dues up to June 30, 2026, at the previously ordered rate of \u20b915,000 per month<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ruling reinforces that maintenance must be decided through verified income documents, not assumptions, job titles or selective disclosure<\/strong>. Financial transparency is required from both spouses, and a husband\u2019s income cannot be artificially increased while an employed wife\u2019s unsupported income statement is accepted at face value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION<\/h3>\n\n\n\n