The Bombay High Court has increased maintenance payments from ₹50,000 to ₹3.5 lakh per month for a Pune-based businessman’s divorced wife after finding that the man concealed his true financial strength.
The husband claimed to earn ₹6 lakh annually, which the court labeled as “farcical” given the family’s extensive real estate and finance empire worth over ₹1,000 crore.
The husband was ordered to pay ₹42 lakh in arrears within four weeks. The ruling follows the couple’s divorce in February 2023 after 16 years of marriage and underscores the court’s firm stance against concealment of wealth in maintenance cases.
Case background and legal context
The married couple, who were together since 1997, divorced on grounds of cruelty in February 2023 at a Pune family court, which granted permanent alimony of ₹50,000 monthly to the wife.
Both parties filed appeals; the wife sought an increase in maintenance citing financial struggles raising their daughter alone and the husband’s extravagant lifestyle, while the husband claimed an inability to pay due to reduced income post-COVID and argued he had already paid sufficient amounts.
He also cited a ₹50 lakh loan to the wife’s uncle as partial settlement of dues. The High Court’s decision reveals how courts examine not just declared income but the broader financial profile in assessing maintenance.
Husband Hides Real Income
The High Court identified that the husband’s tax returns and property declarations did not reflect his real wealth. Despite the ₹6 lakh annual taxable income claimed, the court found that the husband was part of a business group commanding assets worth over ₹1,000 crore.
The husband was publicly recognised as the “torchbearer” of the family’s real estate, construction, and financial services ventures. The court highlighted evidence such as lavish parties, luxury branded clothing, foreign holidays, and expensive education for his son, as well as transfer of over ₹10 crore from the husband’s accounts to his brother.
The court emphasised that selectively focusing on declared income was misleading and unjust in determining maintenance. The court also criticised the husband’s argument that a divorced woman should reduce the daughter’s extracurricular expenses as patriarchal and unreasonable, reaffirming that children’s expenses should match the parents’ joint standard of living during the marriage.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Logical Indian supports judgments that demand transparency and fairness in family law, protecting the rights and dignity of women and children. Concealment of wealth to avoid legal obligations undermines justice and social equity.
Courts must ensure maintenance reflects true financial capacity to maintain the standards the family enjoyed. This case also highlights the need for society to reject patriarchal assumptions that restrict support for children’s development.
