Income Not Specifically Denied During Maintenance Suit Can't Be Disputed After Order Of Maintenance Is Passed: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in a suit for maintenance, when a husband does not specifically deny his alleged income at an initial stage, he cannot at a belated stage raise a plea that the maintenance order was passed without considering the Statement of assets and liabilities of both parties.

"As rightly contended, the petitioner herein in his counter did not specifically deny his earnings and he merely stated that the respondent/wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken the earning capacity of the revision petitioner into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance."

The order was passed by Justice B.S. Bhanumathi in a Civil Revision Petition files by the husband/revision petitioner against the interim order passed by the Civil Court in a divorce petition initiated by his wife, the respondent herein. The interim order directed the revision petitioner to pay an amount of INR 5,16,000/- towards maintenance and arrears of maintenance pending final disposal of the divorce petition.

The respondent in the interlocutory application submitted that in 2019 she gave birth to the son of the revision petitioner, who was born with certain ailments, which the doctors said could only be cured with surgery. It was further said that the revision petitioner herein earned a hefty amount of INR 60,000/- as salary per month, he had not contributed anything towards the welfare of his son. She stated that she was not an earning member and depended on the revision petitioner for her survival.

The respondent/revision petitioner did not deny the allegations and merely stated that no evidence was filed in furtherance of the above mentioned claims. Owing to the same, the trial court allowed the petition for maintenance compelling the revision petitioner to approach the High Court.

The revision petitioner relied on Apex Court decision to contend that the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside due to non-filing of statement of assets and income.

The Bench after hearing the matter held, "The petitioner herein has not raised any objection that the interim order cannot be granted in view of non-filing of such a statement by the respondent herein. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on that ground."

Thus the revision petition was dismissed and the order of maintenance was upheld.

Case no.: CRP 3352 of 2023

Counsel for petitioner: M/s Indus Law firm

Counsel for respondent: N. Sai Phanindra Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order