Gauhati High Court Says Maintenance Cannot Be Fixed on Guesswork Without Proof of Husband’s Income
The Gauhati High Court has delivered a significant ruling on maintenance laws, clarifying that courts cannot impose heavy maintenance obligations merely on assumptions about a husband’s income when no reliable evidence is produced.
In a judgement delivered on 8 May 2026, Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma reduced the maintenance payable to a wife and minor child from ₹20,000 per month to ₹6,000 per month after finding that the wife failed to prove her allegations that the husband earned around ₹1.5 lakh monthly from a medicine business.
The court emphasised that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC must be decided on actual evidence and not on assumptions, speculation, or adverse inference alone.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose after the wife alleged that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty following marriage and was eventually forced to leave the matrimonial home with her daughter. She further claimed that the husband demanded ₹10 lakh from her family and later neglected both her and the child financially.
According to the wife, the husband operated a medicine business and earned nearly ₹1.5 lakh per month. On that basis, she sought substantial maintenance.
The husband, however, denied these allegations. He stated that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home despite repeated efforts by him and local elders to reconcile the dispute. He also maintained that he was not a business owner but merely worked as a salesman in a pharmacy, earning approximately ₹400 per day — translating to roughly ₹12,000 to ₹15,000 per month.
Trial Court’s Earlier Order
The trial court had initially awarded the following:
- ₹12,000 per month to the wife
- ₹8,000 per month to the child
This brought the total monthly maintenance to ₹20,000.
High Court Criticises Arbitrary Assumptions About Income
While reviewing the evidence, the High Court noted that the wife failed to produce any documentary material proving that the husband owned a pharmacy business or earned the alleged amount. Even the witnesses examined during the proceedings could not provide concrete details regarding the supposed business operations.
The Court made an important observation regarding informal employment in India:
“Mere failure of the husband to furnish documents regarding his employment, which may or may not exist as he appears to be having informal employment, does not necessarily discredit his evidence.”
The Court also rejected the argument that an adverse inference should automatically be drawn because the pharmacy owner was not examined as a witness. Justice Sharma observed that an employee may not be in a position to compel an employer to appear in court due to fear of losing employment.
Criticising the lower court’s reasoning, the High Court held:
“It was entirely arbitrary on the part of the learned magistrate to shift the burden of proof upon the husband to establish that his income did not amount to ₹150,000 or ₹75,000 per month.”
Maintenance Adjustment Under Multiple Proceedings
Another major issue considered by the Court was the adjustment of maintenance already granted under proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The High Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgement in Rajnesh v. Neha, which clarified that maintenance awarded in multiple proceedings must be adjusted to prevent duplication and unfair financial burden.
The Court observed that the trial court had failed to properly account for this principle.
Final Relief Granted by the High Court
After considering:
- The husband’s disclosed income
- His obligation towards his second wife
- Dependent child
- Aged mother
The High Court concluded that a total maintenance of ₹6,000 per month would be reasonable for both the wife and child together, including ₹2,000 specifically for the child.
Since the same amount had already been awarded in the domestic violence act proceedings, the court ruled that no additional maintenance was payable under Section 125 CrPC after adjustment.
The husband’s revision petition was therefore partly allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
Legal experts believe this ruling could have wider implications for maintenance litigation across India, especially in cases involving self-employed or informally employed individuals where documentary income records may not exist.
The judgement reinforces several important legal principles:
1. Maintenance Cannot Be Based on Mere Allegations
Courts must rely on credible evidence instead of assumptions regarding income or lifestyle.
2. Informal Workers Cannot Be Expected to Produce Corporate-Style Salary Records
Many individuals in India work in unorganised sectors where formal salary slips or income statements may not be available.
3. Double Maintenance Recovery Is Not Permitted
If maintenance has already been granted under another law, courts must adjust the amount appropriately.
4. Financial Responsibilities Must Be Balanced
Courts should also consider dependent parents, second families, and other lawful obligations while determining maintenance.
Laws and Legal Principles Discussed
| Law / Principle | Purpose | Role in This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 125 CrPC | Provides maintenance to wife, children and parents | The wife sought maintenance under this provision |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Provides monetary and protective relief to women | The wife had already received maintenance under this law |
| Section 106 Indian Evidence Act | Facts within special knowledge must be proved by that person | Raised regarding husband’s income disclosure |
| Rajnesh v. Neha | Supreme Court guidelines on maintenance adjustment | Used for avoiding duplicate maintenance |
| Adverse Inference Principle | Courts may draw inferences from withheld evidence | The trial court relied upon it against the husband. |
Latest Legal Context in 2026
The ruling comes amid growing judicial scrutiny across Indian courts regarding exaggerated income claims in matrimonial disputes. In recent years, several High Courts and the Supreme Court have repeatedly stressed the need for realistic assessment of earning capacity, especially where parties are employed in the informal sector or lack documented income sources.
Courts have also increasingly insisted on detailed financial disclosure affidavits following the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v Neha, aimed at reducing arbitrary maintenance orders and ensuring fairness to both spouses.
The Gauhati High Court’s latest ruling is therefore being viewed as an important reaffirmation that maintenance jurisprudence must remain evidence-based and balanced rather than punitive.
Case Details
| Case | Petitioner v. The State of Assam & Anr. |
|---|---|
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Case Number | Crl. Rev. P. No. 307/2024 |
| Judge | Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:GAU-AS:6332 |
| Date of Judgment | 8 May 2026 |
Key Takeaways
- A husband’s income cannot be assumed merely because a high earning claim is made without documentary proof.
- Men working in informal jobs cannot be forced to produce impossible standards of salary and employment documentation.
- Maintenance granted in multiple proceedings must be properly adjusted to prevent double financial burden.
- Courts must consider a person’s complete financial responsibilities, including aged parents, a second family and dependent children.
- Allegations regarding hidden income, business ownership or earning capacity must be supported by actual evidence and not assumptions.
Disclaimer
This article is intended solely for informational and educational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional for guidance relating to individual cases.
Visit: https://www.shoneekapoor.com
Contact No.: +91-8010850498
Email ID: [email protected]
