Courts may draw adverse inference and impute income where a husband suppresses material financial information to evade maintenance.

The parties were married on April 8, 2014, and have two minor daughters.

They separated in April 2016, with the wife alleging she was ousted for refusing a sex-determination test and for giving birth to girls.

In 2019, a Family Court granted the wife ₹7,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

Subsequently, the wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), alleging physical and economic abuse.

The Trial Court assessed the husband's income at his admitted ₹12,000/- per month and granted an additional ₹3,000/- per month.

On appeal, the Appellate Court enhanced this additional amount to ₹6,000/-, totaling ₹13,000/- per month (inclusive of the S. 125 CrPC order).

Both parties challenged this order: the husband claiming it was excessive and the wife claiming it was inadequate.

1. Whether the interim maintenance of ₹13,000/- per month awarded by the Appellate Court was arbitrary or disproportionate to the husband’s financial status.

2. Whether the husband had suppressed material facts regarding his income and business interests to evade maintenance obligations.

The Court applied Section 12 and Section 29 of the PWDV Act, 2005 and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

It relied on the principle that where a party withholds vital financial information, a presumption arises that such disclosure would have been adverse to them.

Furthermore, the Court followed the precedent in Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar (2025), which dictates that an able-bodied man cannot defeat a maintenance claim by withholding financial particulars, and in such cases of non-disclosure, the Court may impute a baseline earning capacity or resort to minimum wage schedules.

The Court observed that while the wife’s income was "Nil," the husband’s claim of earning only ₹12,000/- per month as a supervisor was non-credible.

Although the husband claimed his plastic business (M/s Lalaji Plastic) closed in 2017, the Court noted he failed to explain the status of his previous bank accounts or provide computation of income for his tax returns.

Specifically, the husband filed ITR-4 forms (pertaining to business/profession) rather than ITR-1 (for salaried individuals), and records showed substantial investments in mutual funds and tax-saving plans just prior to the litigation.

The Court found that for a graduate who previously operated a proprietorship, claiming an income below the statutory minimum wage in Delhi was a deliberate attempt to project a lower financial status.

Consequently, the Court imputed his income to be at least ₹20,000/- per month.

It held that the total interim maintenance of ₹13,000/- per month for the wife and two minor children was reasonable given the husband’s suppressed financial capacity and the current cost of living.

The Court directed that the ₹7,000/- awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be set off/adjusted against the ₹13,000/- awarded under the PWDV Act.

The maintenance is effective from the date of filing the PWDV petition, subject to final adjustments after the trial.