Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Of Husband's Failure To File Income Affidavit In Wife's Plea For Interim Maintenance: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the Court is constrained to draw adverse inferences against husband if despite giving ample opportunities, he fails to file Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in wife's interim-maintenance plea.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In cases where a party fails to file the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, despite being given sufficient opportunities in that regard, the Court is constrained to draw adverse inferences against such party, as per Order IXX Rule 3, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023."

The judge further said that the Court's reliance on Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities ensures a fair and informed assessment of interim maintenance, preventing potential concealment of income or financial mis-representation

These observations were made while hearing the plea filed by a husband against order of a Family Court wherein he was directed to pay Rs.10,000 interim maintenance to his wife and minor son.

Counsel appearing for the husband argued that wife is doing embroidery, sewing and stitching  work and earning handsomely. Whereas, husband has modest income, therefore the interim amount directed by the Court is excessive.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that a decision upon the aspect (especially quantum) of interim maintenance is based on the entitlement of the applicant (making a plea for grant of interim maintenance). It cannot be based upon exact arithmetical calculations at such stage, it added.

The judge noted that the wife has neither any source of income nor possesses any moveable or immoveable property and hence unable to bear the maintenance, education and other developmental expenses of her son, who is living with her.

It further noted that no credible evidence was brought on record to establish that the wife has an independent source of income or is engaged in any form of profitable employment.

"In light of these circumstances, the financial disparity between the petitioner and respondent-wife making it imperative that adequate financial support should be provided to ensure a decent standard of living for the respondent-wife and her son," the Court added.

The Court opined that the amount of Rs.10,000 directed to be paid by the husband to the wife, cannot be said "to be on the higher side and is rather just and appropriate in the facts/circumstances of the case."

Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anu Bala Garg, Advocate for the respondents.

Title: XXXX v. XXXXX