The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with an interim maintenance order directing a husband to pay ₹3,500 per month to his wife, observing that courts are justified in drawing an adverse inference when a husband fails to disclose his income and assets despite opportunities.
Justice Garima Prashad, while dismissing the criminal revision, noted that interim maintenance is meant to ensure basic financial support and a dignified standard of living during the pendency of proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a maintenance application filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
According to the wife, the couple married on June 14, 2020, following Hindu rites and rituals. She alleged that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to dowry demands and has been living with her parents since March 14, 2022.
She claimed that no financial support was provided after she left, and sought ₹15,000 per month for her education and daily needs, including medical expenses, along with ₹2,000 per month towards litigation expenses.
What the Family Court Ordered
The revision was filed against the order dated August 12, 2024, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit, granting the wife ₹3,500 per month as interim maintenance.
The Family Court relied on the wife’s affidavit about her income and qualifications, where she stated she was unemployed. The wife also alleged that her husband owned 75 bighas of agricultural land, earned through farming on lease, and ran coaching classes for competitive exams, with an income of around ₹40,000 per month.
Husband’s Argument Before the High Court
The husband challenged the interim maintenance order, arguing that:
- He had no source of income,
- He did not run coaching classes,
- He did not own agricultural land in revenue records, and
- The wife was well educated and capable of earning, so she should not be granted maintenance.
To support this, he relied on documents showing the wife had completed M.A. in 2011 and later completed LL.B. in 2024.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the High Court pointed out that it was undisputed that the husband had failed to file an affidavit disclosing his income and assets.
Justice Garima Prashad held that courts can draw an adverse inference in such cases, especially when financial details are within the husband’s knowledge. The Court noted that the legal framework allows such an inference under Order XIX Rule 3 CPC and relevant provisions of the Evidence law.
“The courts can draw adverse inference against a husband, who despite giving ample opportunities fails to file an affidavit disclosing his income and assets,” the bench observed in substance while supporting the Family Court’s approach.
The Court also stressed that at the interim stage, the amount of maintenance is not decided through strict mathematical calculation.
“The decision… cannot be based upon exact arithmetical calculation at such stage,” the Court noted.
On the wife’s education-related claim, the High Court found her plea reasonable since she had been studying and completed her LL.B. in 2024.
The Court further recorded that the husband failed to prove that the wife had any independent income or was engaged in profitable employment.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Orders Special Exam for BSc Student Denied Admit Card Due to Portal Error
Decision
The High Court held that the interim maintenance amount of ₹3,500 per month was not excessive and was “just and proper” in the circumstances.
“The respondent wife has been rightly held to be entitled to adequate financial support… to ensure decent standard of living,” the bench observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the revision petition and clarified that the trial court will decide the matter finally on merits without being influenced by the High Court’s interim observations.
Case Title: Shyam Mohan vs State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 4929 of 2024
Decision Date: January 19, 2026
