The Madras High Court ruled that a wife who concealed her ₹1 lakh salary cannot misuse maintenance provisions. The court stressed that maintenance aims to ensure genuine sustenance, not serve as a means for personal enrichment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: In a ruling that could change how maintenance cases are handled, the Madras High Court has found that a wife concealed her real income while seeking interim maintenance from her husband. The court said that the wife was gainfully employed with Cognizant and earning over ₹1 lakh per month, yet failed to disclose this fact in her affidavit.
The judgment came in CRP No. 4112 of 2024, where the husband appealed against an interim maintenance order passed by a lower court in I.A. No. 1 of 2022.
Husband Challenges Maintenance Claim
Representing the husband, advocate A.P. Loganathan told the court that the wife had deliberately hidden her employment and salary information. He produced a pay slip from Cognizant’s HR department for December 2022, which showed that she had been working with the IT major since July 2018, drawing a gross salary above ₹1 lakh and a net salary of ₹87,876.
Loganathan argued that the wife’s concealment amounted to perjury and that she was not entitled to claim any maintenance. He requested that the ₹15,000 monthly maintenance ordered by the family court be quashed.
Court Finds Wife Suppressed True Income
The Madras High Court agreed with the husband’s contention, observing:
“The respondent/wife has suppressed her true income in her affidavit. It is clear from the pay slip for December 2022 that she is gainfully employed and earning a gross salary of more than ₹1 lakh per month.”
The court noted that the wife’s affidavit did not even clarify whether she was seeking maintenance for herself, her minor child, or both, calling her statements “vague and misleading.”
While modifying the lower court’s order, the High Court reduced the interim maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000. It also acknowledged that the husband had already been paying ₹5,000 per month, allowing that amount to be adjusted against the revised figure.
The bench emphasized that both parents share equal responsibility in maintaining their child, stating that the mother, too, must contribute, given her strong financial position.
According to Naman Singh Bagga, Partner at C&S Partners, the judgment marks an important shift in maintenance jurisprudence. He said that the ruling highlights how concealment of material facts can lead to denial of benefits under maintenance laws.
Shashank Agarwal, Founder of Legum Solis, echoed this view, adding that the decision reinforces fairness and accountability.
“Maintenance is meant for genuine sustenance, not for personal gain. A spouse cannot misuse the law by hiding income,”
he said.
Case Title:
N.Santosh Kumar Vs. S.Priyadarshini
CRP.No.4112 of 2024
READ ORDER
