Photographs and social media profiles may show how a woman presents herself online, but a Bengaluru sessions court has held that a wife’s LinkedIn Profile Not Proof Of Income and cannot be used to deny maintenance to her and her child.
Bengaluru: Ordering a husband to pay his wife Rs 20,000 a month as maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has held that photographs and social media profiles, including LinkedIn and Facebook, cannot by themselves establish that a woman has sufficient income to maintain herself and her child [Wife v. Husband (names withheld)].
The woman’s appeal was allowed by Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Mohan Prabhu, who did not accept the husband’s contention that she was employed with a private company and did not need financial support.
What the husband relied on
During arguments, the husband’s counsel produced photographs, a LinkedIn profile and Facebook profile photos to contend that the woman was working. The Court found that he had failed to establish her actual earnings, and that she was unemployed when she filed the domestic violence petition. His own statement of assets and liabilities did not say she was employed, earning or held income-generating property.
“The learned magistrate rightly held that the documents produced by the learned counsel for the respondent at the time of arguments cannot be relied.”
“Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has joined some job, then also it cannot be held that the petitioner is having sufficient income so as to maintain herself and her child.”
The magistrate’s order and the cross-appeals
The couple married in Bengaluru in 2014 and moved to the United States, where the husband worked as an engineer. They had a son. In November 2017, the woman returned to India with the child and began living with her parents.
Alleging physical, mental and economic abuse, she approached a magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act. In April 2025, the magistrate awarded Rs 15,000 a month towards the child’s maintenance, Rs 1.6 lakh a year for educational expenses and Rs 8 lakh as compensation, but declined separate maintenance for the woman in view of her educational qualifications and earning capacity. Both sides appealed to the sessions court.
Degrees and job prospects are not income
Educational qualifications or the possibility of securing a job cannot by themselves justify denying maintenance, the Court said. The actual finances of the parties, their earning capacity and the responsibilities of raising a minor child must be weighed.
“The mother who has custody of child not only has to spend money on the upbringing of the child but also spending substantial time and efforts in bringing up the child. We cannot calculate the same in terms of money.”
Economic abuse and the Rs 20,000 order
Economic abuse is expressly recognised as a form of domestic violence under the 2005 Act, the Court noted, and financial neglect can attract relief under it. It allowed the woman’s appeal and directed the husband to pay her Rs 20,000 a month as maintenance.
Why the judgment matters
Courts have consistently held that maintenance turns on proof of actual income, not on qualifications or on what a spouse could theoretically earn. A social media profile shows how a person presents herself online; it is not evidence of salary, and a party who alleges that the other is earning must prove it with reliable material.
The ruling also recognises the unpaid work of a parent with custody. By treating the time and effort of raising a child as something that cannot be measured in money, and by linking financial neglect to economic abuse under the Domestic Violence Act, it strengthens the case for maintenance where a mother is the primary caregiver.
Case Title: Wife v. Husband (names withheld; matrimonial dispute involving a minor child)
Court: Court of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Presiding Officer: Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Mohan Prabhu
Law: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005