Court emphasizes the necessity of concrete financial evidence in maintenance disputes
In a significant decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal, has set aside a Family Court order concerning maintenance allowances, highlighting the need for proper financial documentation. The case, involving petitioner Rishabh Shrivastava and respondent Ritu Shrivastava, underscores the importance of transparency in financial disclosures during maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Family Court of Balaghat had previously ordered Rishabh Shrivastava to pay Rs. 10,000 monthly to his wife and Rs. 5,000 to his minor son as maintenance. This decision was challenged by the petitioner on grounds that the Family Court presumed the financial status of both parties without adequate proof such as pay slips or equivalent financial evidence.
In the judgment delivered on July 17, 2026, the High Court emphasized the necessity for courts to require parties involved in maintenance disputes to submit current pay slips or similar evidence to accurately assess their financial status. The decision criticized the Family Court for accepting the wife's self-declared monthly income of Rs. 6,000 without a pay slip and for presuming the husband's income to be Rs. 50,000, despite a pay slip indicating a monthly income of Rs. 24,332.
Justice Bansal, citing the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of "Rajnesh v. Neha," reiterated that affidavits of assets and liabilities must be comprehensive and supported by tangible evidence. The lack of such documentation can lead to adverse inferences, as seen in this case where the absence of the wife's pay slip was viewed unfavorably.
The High Court has remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh adjudication, insisting on the production of current financial documentation by both parties. Until a final decision is reached, the High Court has ordered the petitioner to continue paying Rs. 10,000 monthly, effective from July 1, 2026, while ensuring previous dues are settled according to the Family Court’s original order.
This case highlights the judiciary's ongoing efforts to ensure fairness and accuracy in maintenance disputes, reinforcing the need for transparency and adherence to procedural norms in family law cases.
Bottom line:-
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Family Court must rely on cogent evidence like pay slips for determining the financial status and income of the parties while awarding maintenance.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
