Proof that a wife was employed when claiming interim maintenance rendered the award unsustainable.

The wife sought maintenance in Crl. Misc. No. 573/2023 and applied for interim maintenance of ₹1,00,000 per month.

The Family Court directed the husband to pay ₹12,000 per month.

He challenged that order under Article 227, contending that the wife was employed and did not require maintenance.

The wife stated that she had stopped working because of her health.

The Family Court had noted her income-tax returns, earlier salary records and medical documents.

In separate divorce proceedings, the wife testified that she had worked at TCS in 2023, at Celegence Systems before 17 May 2024, and at LNW India Solutions on that date.

The husband also submitted that a divorce decree had been granted in his favour; the Court’s decision on the interim-maintenance order did not turn on that submission.

The Court cited no statutory provision or precedent in its reasoning.

It applied the principle that, when deciding an interim-maintenance claim, the court must consider the available prima facie material concerning the claimant’s income and employment; evidence that the claimant was working when the claim was made may undermine the claim that she had no source of earnings and required maintenance.

A respondent’s failure to disclose assets and liabilities cannot, by itself, be the sole basis for granting maintenance.

The Court considered the wife’s employment history in the Family Court record and her testimony in the divorce proceedings.

It treated that material as showing that she was working when she sought interim maintenance and therefore rejected her contention that she then had no source of income.

Although the husband had not filed an assets-and-liabilities affidavit, the Court held that this omission alone could not sustain the award.

On that basis, it found the order granting ₹12,000 per month unsustainable.

It directed the Family Court to decide Crl. Misc. No. 573/2023 on its own merits, considering the evidence and without being influenced by the High Court’s observations on the merits.