Allahabad High Court dismissed husband’s plea for early disposal of maintenance case, calling it vexatious. Vinod Diwakar imposed Rs 15 lakh costs citing concealment, economic abuse and financial hardship caused to wife.
The High Court at Allahabad has dismissed a petition moved by a husband seeking early disposal of a maintenance proceeding against his wife. The court characterized the case as “vexatious” and “born out of false pretenses.”
While hearing the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution, Justice Vinod Diwakar also imposed a compensatory cost of Rs 15,00,000 on the petitioner-husband for allegedly concealing relevant facts and for putting his wife through a pattern of financial hardship.
The court observed that the petitioner an able-bodied, practising Advocate had not only hidden an earlier maintenance order passed in his favour, but had also allegedly diverted loans reportedly taken by his wife for his own “luxurious life” and “alcoholic drinks.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner and the respondent married on May 18, 2019. At the time, both were preparing for competitive examinations. Shortly after, the respondent obtained a government job as an Additional Private Secretary in the High Court of Allahabad, while the petitioner despite being a law graduate and a registered Advocate remained unemployed.
A series of disputes followed, leading to multiple litigations. The husband filed a maintenance application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah. He then approached the High Court requesting that the proceedings be expedited, alleging that he had no independent source of income and was suffering from health problems due to stress from the litigation.
Submissions by the Parties
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the wife had damaged his career by lodging false FIRs and filing a divorce petition. He further submitted that he had to travel long distances for court dates and had developed serious health issues. He described himself as an “unemployed youth” without any means to survive.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the wife presented a different version. She submitted that the husband belonged to a politically influential family and had earlier worked as a civil contractor before entering the legal profession. She alleged that the husband was a “compulsive liar” who obtained two personal loans totalling over Rs 25 lakhs from the respondent’s salary account under the pretext of buying land, but “exhausted all the loan amount… on alcoholic drinks and leading luxurious life.”
The respondent also told the court that she was paying a monthly EMI of Rs 26,020 towards those loans. She stated that she was also already paying the husband Rs 5,000 per month as interim maintenance under an earlier order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Court’s Observations
The court examined bank statements, affidavits, and records from the Family Courts.
Concealment of Material Facts:
The court found that the husband had sworn false affidavits. It held that he failed to disclose that he was already receiving Rs 5,000 per month in maintenance from his wife. It also noted that the proceedings he sought to “expedite” were already stayed by another bench of the High Court.
Whether a Husband Can Seek Maintenance Under the Provision:
The court noted that Section 144 of BNSS (which is broadly comparable to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) primarily addresses maintenance for wives, children, and parents. Relying on authorities including B. Clement v. Mcthel Thanga Annam and Malleshwaramma v. G.S. Srinivasulu, the court held that
“the legislature would not have intended to clothe the husband with the right to claim maintenance from his wife under this Chapter.”
Financial Exploitation and “Luxury Litigation”:
The court viewed the alleged financial exploitation of the wife seriously. Justice Diwakar remarked:
“Economic abuse within marriage operates in insidious ways through control over income, coercive appropriation of assets, and the gradual erosion of financial independence.”
The judgment indicated that the wife’s financial resources were “systematically depleted” by the husband, and described the petitioner as a “well-built, shameless youth, who has no respect for the hard work, sincerity, and loyalty” of his wife.
Directions of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the petition for lack of bona fides and to address “marital exploitation” and “unjust enrichment,” it issued the following directions:
- Compensatory cost: The husband must pay Rs 15,00,000 to the wife within six weeks.
- Recovery mechanism: If the amount is not paid, the District Magistrate, Etawah, shall recover it as arrears of land revenue.
- Protection of property: The Sub-Registrar must ensure that no third-party interest is created in the petitioner’s properties until recovery is completed.
- Inquiry into perjury: The Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj, is directed to inquire into the filing of false affidavits by the husband.
- Expedited divorce: The trial court is directed to expedite pending divorce proceedings under Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, and to conduct them in camera to protect the dignity of the parties.
The court concluded by observing that the law must develop to recognise that “justice within marriage is not merely symbolic but materially enforceable.”
Case Title: Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh