The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking early disposal of his maintenance case and imposed a hefty cost of ₹15 lakh on him for suppressing key facts and misusing legal proceedings.
Background of the Case
The dispute stems from a marriage solemnised in May 2019. Over time, the relationship deteriorated, leading to multiple legal proceedings between the parties.
The husband approached the High Court seeking a direction to expedite a maintenance case filed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, pending before the Family Court in Etawah.
He claimed financial hardship, stating he had no stable income and was dependent on loans from friends and relatives.
However, the wife opposed the plea, alleging that the husband had misused her financial resources, including substantial loans taken from her salary account, and had initiated multiple proceedings to harass and delay matters.
Justice Vinod Diwakar closely examined records from various courts, financial documents, and prior orders. The Court noted several inconsistencies and omissions in the husband’s claims.
A key finding was that the husband had already been granted interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month in separate matrimonial proceedings but failed to disclose this fact in the present petition.
The Court also observed that proceedings in the maintenance case he sought to expedite had already been stayed by a coordinate bench - another fact he did not reveal.
“The petitioner has approached this Court with concealment of material facts and false averments on oath,” the bench observed.
The judge further noted that the petitioner, being an able-bodied individual and a practicing advocate, could not portray himself as completely dependent without full disclosure of his financial status.
Importantly, the Court highlighted that the legal provision invoked Section 144 BNSS primarily provides maintenance to wives, children, and parents, and not ordinarily to husbands.
The Court took note of evidence showing that the wife had taken significant loans over ₹25 lakh in total from her salary account, allegedly at the husband’s insistence. She continues to repay EMIs of ₹26,020 per month.
Bank records indicated that a substantial portion of these funds had been transferred to the husband’s accounts.
The Court remarked on patterns of withdrawals and transactions, observing that the funds appeared to have been used in a manner inconsistent with the stated purpose of purchasing property.
The High Court also expressed concern over the petitioner’s conduct during proceedings.
The record showed repeated absences, changes of legal counsel, and attempts to delay hearings. At one stage, even a senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought discharge mid-hearing.
The Court noted that such conduct, coupled with filing multiple cases and incomplete disclosures, indicated lack of bona fides.
Dismissing the petition, the Court held that it did not merit exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
“The equity demands the present petition is dismissed,” the Court stated.
The Court imposed compensatory costs of ₹15,00,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be paid to the respondent-wife within six weeks through a demand draft deposited with the Registrar General.
It further clarified that observations made in the order would not affect the merits of pending cases before the Family Court, which must decide them independently in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 12198 of 2025
Judge: Justice Vinod Diwakar
Decision Date: April 23, 2026
