The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that deliberate suppression of income in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC renders the award unsustainable, emphasizing that truthful disclosure of assets and liabilities is not a formality but a foundational requirement under Rajnesh v. Neha. The Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after finding that the applicant concealed her substantial income while securing maintenance from a husband with significantly lower earnings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a maintenance application filed by Smt. Ashi Verma (Opposite Party No. 2) under Section 125 CrPC against her husband, Gaurav Verma (Revisionist), seeking maintenance for herself and their minor son, Yajur Verma (Opposite Party No. 3). The marriage was solemnized on 08.12.2010 according to Hindu rites. The applicant alleged that after marriage, she was subjected to cruelty, financial pressure to transfer property from her father to her husband, and was eventually thrown out of the matrimonial home in 2021. She claimed she had no independent income and was dependent on her father for sustenance.
Key Facts
- The marriage took place on 08.12.2010 in Etawah, Uttar Pradesh
- Two sons were born: elder son in 2018 and younger son (Yajur Verma) in 2021
- The applicant’s father allegedly paid Rs. 20,000/- per month to the husband during the marriage
- In 2021, after the birth of the second child, the applicant was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home
- A criminal case under Section 307 IPC was filed by the applicant’s father against the husband and his family in 2021
- On 02.06.2022, the husband allegedly took away the elder son from the applicant’s parental home
- The applicant filed a Habeas Corpus petition (Special Appeal No. 658 of 2022) before the Allahabad High Court on 20.02.2023, in which she submitted an affidavit disclosing her annual income as Rs. 4,58,570/- for Assessment Year 2022-23, supported by certified income tax returns
- The same income details were reflected in a net worth certificate issued by Navin Vikas & Co., Chartered Accountants, dated 20.02.2023
- In her Section 125 CrPC application filed before the Family Court, Etawah, the applicant declared her income as nil
- The husband’s affidavit before the trial court disclosed his monthly income as Rs. 30,000/- and annual income of Rs. 3,58,710/- for A.Y. 2022-23
- The trial court passed the impugned order on 16.07.2024, awarding Rs. 8,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor son, effective from the date of filing of the application
Procedural History
- 08.12.2010: Marriage solemnized
- 2021: Applicant allegedly thrown out of matrimonial home; criminal case filed under Section 307 IPC
- 02.06.2022: Elder son taken away by husband
- 20.02.2023: Applicant files affidavit in Habeas Corpus petition disclosing income of Rs. 4,58,570/-
- 2024: Application under Section 125 CrPC filed before Family Court, Etawah (Case No. 380 of 2022)
- 16.07.2024: Family Court awards maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- to wife and Rs. 5,000/- to son
- 12.05.2026: Criminal Revision Nos. 4251 and 5177 of 2024 heard and reserved
- 29.05.2026: Judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court
The Parties' Positions
Revisionist (Husband): Contended that the applicant deliberately suppressed her income of over Rs. 4.5 lakh per annum in her affidavit before the trial court, while disclosing it in a High Court affidavit. He asserted his own income is only Rs. 30,000/- per month from a restaurant business and has no objection to maintenance for the son.
Applicant (Wife): Claimed she has no independent income, that her father’s fixed deposits yield only meagre interest, and that the income disclosed in the Habeas Corpus petition was misleading or misinterpreted. She sought enhancement of maintenance for herself and her son.
Relief Sought
- Criminal Revision No. 4251/2024 (Husband): Set aside the maintenance award to the wife on grounds of suppression of material facts and false affidavit; uphold maintenance for the son.
- Criminal Revision No. 5177/2024 (Wife): Enhance the maintenance awarded to both herself and her son.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a maintenance award under Section 125 CrPC can be sustained when the applicant has deliberately suppressed her substantial income in the mandatory affidavit of assets and liabilities filed before the trial court, while disclosing the same income in a sworn affidavit before a higher court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the applicant’s declaration of nil income before the Family Court was a deliberate falsehood, in direct contradiction to her sworn affidavit before the High Court dated 20.02.2023, which disclosed an annual income of Rs. 4,58,570/- supported by certified income tax returns. He relied on Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], which mandates full disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings. He submitted that the trial court’s failure to consider this material evidence amounted to non-application of judicial mind and rendered the order perverse. He further contended that the husband’s income is modest and insufficient to support both parties at the awarded rates.
For the Respondent/State
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the income disclosed in the High Court affidavit was not her own but derived from her father’s fixed deposits, and that the interest earned was insufficient to meet her and her son’s basic needs. She submitted that the trial court’s order was fair and that the revisionist’s challenge was an attempt to evade liability. She also contended that the revisionist’s income was higher than claimed and that the maintenance awarded was inadequate for the child’s medical and educational needs.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the conflicting disclosures and the binding precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha. It observed that the Supreme Court had laid down mandatory guidelines requiring both parties to file truthful affidavits of assets and liabilities, and that failure to do so constitutes an abuse of process. The Court noted:
"The affidavit is not a mere formality; it is the foundation for determining fair maintenance. Any breach whether by omission or commission carries both procedural consequences (adverse inference, denial of relief) and penal consequences (perjury, contempt)."
The Court emphasized that the applicant’s declaration of nil income before the Family Court was directly contradicted by her own sworn statement before the High Court, which was placed on record by the revisionist and brought to the trial court’s attention. The trial court’s complete silence on this contradiction, despite the production of certified income tax returns and net worth certificates, amounted to a failure to apply judicial mind.
The Court further clarified that while possession of income does not automatically disentitle a wife to maintenance, the adequacy of such income must be assessed in light of the standard of living during the marriage, medical needs, and educational expenses of the child. However, this assessment can only be made if the court has accurate and truthful data. The trial court’s failure to reconcile the contradictory disclosures rendered its order legally unsustainable.
Regarding the revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance, the Court held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CrPC is supervisory and not appellate. The High Court cannot substitute its own factual findings or enhance maintenance without fresh evidence of changed circumstances. Such enhancement must be sought through an application under Section 127 CrPC or Section 146 BNSS, not in revision.
The Verdict
The revisionist succeeded in part. The Allahabad High Court set aside the maintenance award of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the wife, affirmed the award of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor son, and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh determination of the wife’s maintenance. The trial court was directed to reassess the wife’s entitlement based on her disclosed income of Rs. 4,58,570/- per annum, her assets, liabilities, and the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha. The trial court must pass a reasoned order within three months of the certified copy of this judgment. The husband shall continue paying Rs. 5,000/- per month to the son during the pendency of the fresh proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Affidavits in Maintenance Proceedings Will Be Penalized
- Practitioners must now treat affidavits of assets and liabilities under Rajnesh v. Neha as legally binding declarations subject to penalties under Sections 191-193 IPC for perjury
- Courts are empowered to draw adverse inferences, strike off defenses, or initiate contempt proceedings where income is concealed
- Any party filing inconsistent affidavits across forums risks having their entire claim dismissed
Enhancement of Maintenance Cannot Be Sought in Revision
- Applications for enhancement of maintenance must be filed under Section 127 CrPC or Section 146 BNSS, not through revision
- Revisional courts lack jurisdiction to evaluate fresh evidence or substitute factual determinations
- Practitioners must file separate applications with new evidence of changed circumstances (e.g., medical emergencies, education costs) to seek modification
Judicial Scrutiny of Income Disclosures Is Now Mandatory
- Courts must actively reconcile conflicting income disclosures across proceedings
- Merely recording documents is insufficient; courts must discuss and evaluate them in their orders
- Failure to do so invites interference on revision, as seen in this case
- Practitioners should always cross-check affidavits filed in other forums before filing maintenance applications
