The Bombay High Court recently imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on a man for deliberately avoiding maintenance payments to his wife and minor daughter. The fine must be paid to the wife within four weeks. The case involved a techie who claimed he could not afford to pay Rs 30,000 per month in maintenance, as ordered by a civil court. However, the court found that he was earning Rs 65 lakh per year—about Rs 5.5 lakh per month—when he took the job in August 2021. Just four days after joining, he claimed that he met with an accident and went on medical leave for two months. He later resigned in February 2022 and took up a lower-paying job with a salary of Rs 20,000 per month.
Despite this claim, Justice Madhav Jamdar noted several inconsistencies. The man failed to mention the accident in his earlier court filings and only referred to it in a February 2024 reply to a contempt petition. The judge also pointed out that the husband continued to list his income as Rs 35–50 lakh on matrimonial websites until November 2023, suggesting he was hiding his true financial situation.
The court further observed that between February 2021 and January 2022, the man transferred Rs 34 lakh to his mother and brother, likely to shield his assets. Justice Jamdar concluded that the husband made a “systematic attempt” to make any maintenance order unenforceable.
The judge dismissed the man’s petition and criticized him for coming to the court with “unclean hands” and a false case. He also condemned the fact that the husband was unwilling to support his eight-year-old daughter.
Despite this claim, Justice Madhav Jamdar noted several inconsistencies. The man failed to mention the accident in his earlier court filings and only referred to it in a February 2024 reply to a contempt petition. The judge also pointed out that the husband continued to list his income as Rs 35–50 lakh on matrimonial websites until November 2023, suggesting he was hiding his true financial situation.
The court further observed that between February 2021 and January 2022, the man transferred Rs 34 lakh to his mother and brother, likely to shield his assets. Justice Jamdar concluded that the husband made a “systematic attempt” to make any maintenance order unenforceable.
The judge dismissed the man’s petition and criticized him for coming to the court with “unclean hands” and a false case. He also condemned the fact that the husband was unwilling to support his eight-year-old daughter.
You may also like
Beckenham Park lake search called off as body found in hunt for missing boy, 15
Amadou Bagayoko dead: Amadou & Mariam musician dies after long illness
These indoor plants reduce the temperature of your house, note their names
'Just a walking ATM': Indian student speaks out on the harsh reality of studying in New Zealand
Police deployed at Sandhya theatre, reason is Allu Arjun again