The Court was not convinced by the software engineer’s claim that his salary of ₹5.5 lakhs per month had dropped to ₹20,000 per month after he was allegedly forced to switch jobs.
The Bombay High Court recently imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on a software engineer for his “systematic attempt” to evade paying maintenance to his wife and minor daughter [Y v A].
The man had sought a revision of the maintenance amount, citing financial difficulties that arose after he was allegedly forced to resign from his earlier job and switch to a low-paying job.
The Court, however, identified inconsistencies in his statement and concluded that his claim of a salary drop from ₹5.5 lakhs to approximately ₹20,000 per month was “unbelievable.”
“It is unbelievable that the Petitioner who is a Software Engineer and working as ‘Software Developer’ and was getting salary of Rs 65,00,000 per annum i.e salary of Rs 5,50,000 per month is now getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month,” Justice Madhav Jamdar said.
The judge further observed that the man’s updated matrimonial profile listed his annual income as ₹35–50 lakh, directly contradicting the claims he made in Court.
In its order dated March 19, the Court dismissed the man’s plea and directed him to pay the ₹1 lakh cost imposed to his estranged wife within four weeks.
The case arose from ongoing divorce proceedings between a Pune-based software engineer and his wife. The couple, who got married in April 2016, had a daughter in 2017. They began living separately in January 2020, and the husband filed for divorce in September the same year.
During the proceedings, the man claimed he had to resign from his job at a software firm following an accident in August 2021. However, the Court pointed out that this incident was never mentioned in any of his earlier applications, including one submitted in 2023 seeking a modification of the maintenance order.
In September 2022, the Civil Judge in Pune had directed him to pay ₹30,000 per month in maintenance to his wife and daughter, in addition to covering mortgage EMIs.
He later sought a revision of this order, citing financial hardship caused by a new, significantly lower-paying job. Yet, he did not attribute his job change to the alleged accident until he filed an affidavit in February 2025—more than a year and a half later. The Court questioned the credibility and timing of this belated explanation.
The wife showed evidence that the software engineer had sent large amounts of money to his family during this time, arguing that he was trying to avoid paying her maintenance. She also pointed out that his matrimonial profile still showed a much higher income, which didn’t match his claims of financial trouble.
The husband’s lawyer said he lost his job because of an accident and medical leave. But the Court found this explanation hard to believe. The wife’s lawyer argued that his actions looked like an attempt to hide his real income and avoid his responsibility to pay maintenance.
In his ruling, Justice Jamdar criticized the software engineer for being dishonest and misleading the Court.
“It has been observed that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. His case can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation,” the judge added, while emphasizing that courts cannot entertain petitions built on false statements and dismissing the husband’s plea.
