Case at a Glance
A wife sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC for herself and her minor daughter, saying her husband earned ₹50,000 a month as a sales executive. Despite repeated directions, he never filed his affidavit of income and assets and did not pay ₹5,000 ad-interim maintenance, so the Family Court drew an adverse inference and awarded ₹20,000 a month. His revision, filed 222 days late, claimed he earned only about ₹10,000. The Delhi High Court refused to condone the delay, found no ground to interfere, and dismissed the revision, leaving him free to file his affidavit before the Family Court and seek modification.
On 1 July 2024 the wife filed MT No. 356/2024 before the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC, for herself and her minor daughter, stating that the husband worked as a Sales Executive with a paint company and earned ₹50,000 a month. On 5 September 2024 the husband was directed to file an affidavit of income and assets with three years of supporting documents. He did not. On 28 October 2024 he was given two more weeks and directed to pay ad-interim maintenance of ₹5,000 a month, which he did not pay. Further opportunities followed, but no affidavit was ever filed.
By order dated 15 November 2025, Family Court-1, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts drew an adverse inference, took his income as ₹50,000 a month, divided it into five shares and awarded interim maintenance of ₹20,000 a month (₹10,000 each to the wife and daughter). The husband filed a revision on 26 September 2026, 222 days after limitation expired, blaming his previous counsel for not informing him of the order and claiming he earned only about ₹10,000 a month.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should the delay in filing the revision be condoned, and could the husband challenge the interim maintenance after failing to file his income affidavit?
An Explanation Belied by the Record
The Court said that in a normal situation it would take a liberal approach to delay, but here “the explanation furnished by the petitioner is belied by the record”, since the impugned order itself recorded that it was passed after hearing his counsel. “The plea that the petitioner believed the case to be closed cannot be accepted,” and no affidavit from his previous counsel was filed. Noting his non-compliance with the ad-interim order, the Court held that “No sufficient cause is therefore shown” and that “The petitioner has been negligent and has approached this Court only when execution proceedings were taken against him.”
On the merits, the Court held that “the learned Family Court cannot be faulted for drawing an adverse inference”, because the husband failed to file his affidavit of income and assets despite repeated opportunities. His bare claim of earning ₹10,000 a month, unsupported by any affidavit, did not make out a ground for interference.
What the Court Actually Held
- The 222-day delay was not condoned: the claim of ignorance was belied by the record, and the husband had approached the Court only when execution proceedings began.
- A Family Court may draw an adverse inference and assess income on the wife’s assertion when the husband repeatedly fails to file his affidavit of income and assets.
- No ground for interference with the interim maintenance of ₹20,000 per month was made out; the revision was dismissed.
- The husband remains free to file his affidavit with supporting documents before the Family Court and seek modification, to be considered on merits after hearing the wife.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Non-disclosure of income is a common tactic in maintenance cases; this ruling confirms that it can backfire through an adverse inference.
- It shows that blaming earlier counsel will not secure condonation of delay when the record shows otherwise.
- It protects wives and children awaiting interim support from belated, unexplained challenges.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives and Children
- State the husband’s job and income clearly in the maintenance petition.
- If he does not file his income affidavit, ask the Family Court to draw an adverse inference.
- Execution proceedings can be pursued while challenges are pending.
For Counsel
- Advise husbands to file a complete affidavit of income and assets at the earliest stage.
- A delay application must be supported by material, such as an affidavit from previous counsel.
- Where an order has already been passed, seek modification by filing the affidavit rather than a belated revision.
Key Takeaways
- No income affidavit can mean an adverse inference.
- ₹20,000 a month interim maintenance upheld.
- 222-day delay not condoned; explanation belied by record.
- Husband may still file affidavit and seek modification.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if a husband does not file his income affidavit in a maintenance case?
The Family Court may draw an adverse inference and assess his income on the basis of the wife’s assertion, as it did here by taking his income as ₹50,000 a month.
Why was the delay not condoned?
The husband claimed his counsel had not told him about the order, but the order recorded that it was passed after hearing his counsel, no affidavit from previous counsel was filed, and he came to court only after execution proceedings began.
Can the husband still get the maintenance reduced?
Yes. The Court left it open to him to file his affidavit of income and assets with supporting documents before the Family Court and seek modification, which will be decided on merits after hearing the wife.
Conclusion
The order is short but pointed: a husband who hides his income from the Family Court cannot later ask the High Court to believe a lower figure, and a delay explained by a story the record contradicts will not be excused.
Practical takeaway: In maintenance proceedings, file a complete income and assets affidavit on time; once an adverse inference is drawn, the route back is through full disclosure before the Family Court.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com