A Gurgaon Family Court has upheld ₹2 lakh monthly maintenance for an estranged wife despite her husband's reported 50% income decline. According to Mint, the court directed the husband to deposit ₹2 lakh by the 10th of every month to his wife, rejecting his argument that his financial circumstances had changed significantly. The husband's net annual salary had dropped to around ₹36 lakh, with his income tax returns showing a sharp reduction from ₹2 crore in Assessment Year 2023-24 to approximately ₹1 crore in Assessment Year 2025-26. However, the court maintained that the explanation for the substantial income decline was unsatisfactory, especially since the husband continued to hold the same senior role at Deloitte.
The husband argued that his financial circumstances had changed significantly, with his net annual salary falling to around ₹36 lakh. As reported by Mint, he cited home loan liabilities of ₹1.7 crore, in addition to responsibilities to his parents. He also showed the court that he was spending around ₹19.2 lakh annually for his children's boarding school education. However, the family court found the explanation for the substantial decline in income unsatisfactory, especially since the husband continued to hold the same employment. His previous income disclosures placed him in a significantly higher tax slab, including around ₹2 crore in assessment year 2023-24 and ₹2.9 crore in 2024-25.
The court ruled out the distinction between children's education expenses and broader maintenance obligations. According to Mint, Principal Judge Poonam Kanwar noted that paying the children's school fees did not cover all their financial needs. The children continued to have other day-to-day expenses, therefore the wife's maintenance also had to be assessed separately. Manmeet Kaur, Partner at Karanjawala & Co, explained to ET Wealth Online that an educated spouse cannot automatically be denied maintenance just because she has qualifications or potential to earn. Education doesn't simply mean that a person is currently employed or earning.
The husband argued that his wife was highly educated and capable of earning, and alleged that she didn't disclose certain assets, including a PPF account and fixed deposits, alongside her foreign tours, including a trip to Georgia. As reported by Mint, the wife's lawyer maintained that the husband's income reduction remained unexplained because he continued to work in the same senior position at Deloitte. The wife also alleged that the husband had not disclosed mutual fund investments worth approximately ₹5 crore, along with other assets. According to her counsel, she had not been receiving adequate regular financial support and was compelled to prematurely withdraw fixed deposits and take a gold loan to manage household expenses. The court rejected these arguments at the interim stage, with legal experts noting that allegations about undisclosed assets must be supported by evidence.
The case serves as an important example for individuals involved in maintenance proceedings, particularly when a significant difference between a person's current declared income and previous earnings is spotted. According to Mint, legal experts believe the decision could have implications for the way courts approach interim maintenance applications where one spouse reports a significant reduction in income. The ruling reinforces that a sudden fall in declared income may not necessarily become the sole basis for calculating maintenance when there is no convincing explanation for the change and the spouse continues in the same job and senior position. The court ruling establishes that earning capacity is not determined solely by the latest ITR filing, and a court may seek one's past income, seniority and other financial circumstances while deciding on maintenance.
