Able-bodied husband concealing income and suppressing material facts is disentitled to maintenance and liable for compensatory costs.

The petitioner (husband) filed an application under Article 227 to expedite maintenance proceedings (Case No. 523 of 2025) filed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against his wife.

The parties married in 2019; the wife secured a government job as an Additional Private Secretary, whereas the husband, a law graduate and practicing advocate, remained technically "unemployed".

The respondent-wife alleged that the husband fraudulently coerced her into taking personal loans totaling approximately ₹25 lakhs, which he misappropriated for a "debauched life," leaving her to pay monthly EMIs of ₹26,020.

The petitioner suppressed the fact that he was already receiving interim maintenance of ₹5,000/month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) from a parallel divorce proceeding.

Furthermore, the BNSS proceedings he sought to expedite had already been stayed by a Coordinate Bench.

The court primarily applied Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 125 CrPC), which provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents but excludes husbands.

The court relied on precedents such as B. Clement v. Mcthel Thanga Annam and Malleshwaramma v. G.S. Srinivasulu to establish that the legislature intentionally omitted "husbands" from this welfare provision.

The court further applied the principles of Rajnesh v. Neha regarding the mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities and the doctrine of restitutio-in-integrum to address unjust enrichment in matrimonial exploitation.

Jurisprudentially, Section 144 BNSS is a gender-specific provision meant to prevent vagrancy among vulnerable groups; an able-bodied husband, especially a practicing advocate, cannot claim maintenance under this section.

The court noted the petitioner’s "crooked" conduct: he concealed his actual income (ITR of ₹4.7 lakhs), suppressed existing maintenance orders from the Prayagraj Family Court, and hid the fact that the very proceedings he sought to "expedite" were stayed.

The court characterized the husband's depletion of the wife's salary through coerced loans and UPI transfers as "economic abuse".

It reasoned that Article 227 is a discretionary, equitable jurisdiction that cannot be exercised in favor of a litigant who approaches the court with "unclean hands" and false affidavits.

Due to the petitioner’s "reprehensible behavior" and "luxury litigation," the court imposed a compensatory cost of ₹15,00,000/- to be paid to the wife within six weeks.

Specific directions were issued to the District Magistrate, Etawah, to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue and bar any property transfers by the petitioner until payment; additionally, the court directed the Family Court, Prayagraj, to expedite the divorce trial under Section 21-B of the HMA, conduct proceedings in-camera, and hold an inquiry into the petitioner’s perjury regarding false affidavits.