In the case at hand, the husband’s contradictory statements about his employment and dependency on others for income created doubt about his actual income, led to affirmation of maintenance order.
In the context of a revision application challenging an order related to a case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) concerning spousal maintenance, Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, acting as the solitary adjudicator, expounded that husbands are legally obligated to forthrightly disclose their precise income to the Court. The Justice underscored the paramount importance of this obligation. The Court’s articulation on the matter is as follows:
“Suppression of income can be a vital tool to come to a conclusion that petitioner/husband being an able-bodied person has sufficient income to maintain his wife.”
The Court, hence, upheld the maintenance order.
Brief Facts
In the extant case, the petitioner has initiated an appeal to contest the judgment pronounced by the Family Court in Calcutta on August 10, 2017. The subject matter of this judgment falls within the purview of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Within this legal context, the petitioner disputes the allegations levied against him by his spouse (referred to as opposite party 2), encompassing various forms of mistreatment, inclusive of both physical and psychological abuse.
The wife asserts that their marital union, solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on July 10, 2008, was fraught with adversities. Furthermore, she contends that notwithstanding her husband’s monthly income amounting to Rs. 40,000, he failed to provide adequate financial support. Conversely, the petitioner vehemently repudiates all such allegations, asserting that the wife voluntarily vacated their shared residence merely five days after their matrimonial vows.
Subsequent to a comprehensive examination of the evidentiary record, the Family Court issued an order mandating the petitioner to make a monthly payment of Rs. 10,000 to the wife, with the obligation to remit these payments within the initial 15 days of each successive month.
Contentions
The petitioner’s central contention pertains to the temporal aspect of the wife’s petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The petitioner asserts that the wife submitted her application four years subsequent to voluntarily vacating the marital residence, contending that this delay renders her claim irrelevant. Furthermore, it is contended that the judge’s decision was influenced by extraneous factors and deviated from established legal principles. Additionally, the petitioner maintains that the wife’s voluntary departure from the marital domicile, coupled with the removal of her possessions and her reluctance to return without valid cause, renders her ineligible for maintenance.
Moreover, the petitioner argues that the wife is gainfully employed and earns a monthly income of Rs. 10,000, demonstrating her self-sufficiency and disqualifying her from seeking financial support. The petitioner also raises questions regarding the substantial maintenance ordered by the judge, asserting that the wife’s assertions regarding the husband’s business holdings lack specificity and fail to be substantiated by credible evidence.
Conversely, the respondent relies on evidence provided by the petitioner’s brother-in-law to contend that the wife left the marital home due to adverse circumstances. Furthermore, it is argued that the available evidence lacks credibility concerning the wife’s income, and the husband has not furnished pertinent documents in this regard. The respondent also underscores the petitioner’s admission during cross-examination, where he acknowledged his unemployment, thereby casting doubt on his capacity to provide financial support.
Court’s Decision
The Court duly acknowledged the legal marital status of both parties and found no compelling evidence substantiating the wife’s alleged volitional abandonment of her husband without valid justifications.
Regarding the assessment of the wife’s financial capacity, the Court encountered a paucity of credible evidence available to ascertain her income. In relation to the husband’s financial position, the Court observed conflicting statements within the testimonies of the witnesses, engendering reasonable doubts about the veracity of the husband’s reported income.
The Court underscored the husband’s duty to disclose his income if he indeed possessed one. Therefore, in consideration of the prevailing inflation rate and the evidentiary record, the Court declined to intercede with the maintenance order rendered by the Family Court. Consequently, the revision application was denied.
