Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a court may draw adverse inference against a wife seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if she fails to submit her latest salary slips or financial records, particularly when claiming financial hardship or insufficient income. A revision petition was filed by a woman against the denial of maintenance by a Family Court. A Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “As the primary ingredient for grant of maintenance to a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – i.e. her inability to maintain herself – has not been satisfactorily proved, in absence of clear and reliable evidence of financial hardship, the claim of the wife becomes speculative and cannot be sustained.”
Background The Family Court had previously granted maintenance to the couple’s daughter, who is in the custody of the mother, but denied maintenance to the wife, citing concealment of her actual income and failure to produce recent salary slips. The wife's December 2016 salary slip showed an income of ₹33,052. She later claimed she was earning only ₹10,000 per month as a temporary teacher in a U.P. government school after her alleged termination. However, no salary certificate or documentation was produced to substantiate this claim. The husband contested the wife’s claim, arguing that she had deliberately withheld material financial information and presented a misleading picture of her income to secure maintenance.
Finding Agreeing with the Family Court’s conclusion, the High Court noted, “No recent salary certificate was placed before the learned Family Court despite opportunities given by the learned Trial Court. She also did not offer any plausible explanation in the evidence for withholding recent salary details. The learned Family Court, thus rightly reached to a conclusion that such omission, without any cogent explanation, casts a doubt on the genuineness of her claim and justifies an adverse inference against her.” The Court further held that in absence of evidence proving genuine financial hardship, the claim becomes speculative and cannot stand legal scrutiny under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Cause Title: X & Anr. v. The State & Anr., [2025:DHC:7930]
Best Divorce case Lawyer in Karkardooma Court Delhi
Best divorce lawyer
Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi
Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi
Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi
Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi
Transfer petition case lawyer
NRI mutual consent divorce case lawyer
Matrimonial dispute case lawyer
Lawyer for interim maintenance case in karkarkardooma Court delhi
Best divorce case lawyer in East delhi
Comments
Post a Comment