Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹15 Lakh Costs On Husband For Filing False Affidavits In Maintenance Case Against Wife

Read judgment

The Allahabad High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 15 lakhs on a husband who filed false affidavits in his application under Section 144 BNSS seeking maintenance from his wife who is employed in the High Court. Noting that the husband had forced the wife in government job to take loan twice and transferred the loan amount to himself, was himself working as an advocate.

[08:54, 25/04/2026] Satish Swami: The ruling, delivered on April 23, 2024, by Justice Vinod Diwakar, highlighted that marriage is not a "license for exploitation" and slammed the husband for pursuing vexatious litigation while concealing material facts. 

Key Highlights of the Case:

Economic Misconduct: The court noted the husband coerced his wife into taking over ₹25 lakh in loans for his personal use, leaving her with significant EMI burdens.

Concealment and Fines: While seeking further maintenance, the husband failed to disclose that he was already receiving ₹5,000 monthly, leading the court to order him to pay ₹15 lakh within six weeks to his wife, failing which it will be recovered as land revenue.

Judicial Observation: The bench condemned the behavior of the husband, an advocate, stating that his actions did not justify a claim of dependency.

It’s a significant ruling because it sets a strong precedent against litigation abuse and the use of false affidavits to stall maintenance proceedings. 

Case Background and Petitioner's Claims (Sections 1-4)

• Initial Filing: The petitioner (husband) filed a petition under Article 227 to expedite maintenance proceedings he initiated against his wife under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023.

• Marriage and Career: The parties married in 2019; the wife secured a government job as an Additional Private Secretary at the High Court, while the husband, despite having an LL.B. and being a registered advocate, remained unemployed.

• Petitioner's Grievances: He alleged the wife misbehaved, filed false criminal cases against him, and humiliated him for his lack of income.

• Financial Distress: He claimed to have no source of income, suffering from various health issues due to the stress of traveling for numerous litigations.

Respondent's Counter-Arguments (Section 5)

• Allegations of Fraud: The wife contended the husband is a "compulsive liar" from a politically well-connected family who is capable of earning but chooses to seek "free money" to support a debauched lifestyle.

• Financial Exploitation: She alleged he fraudulently took personal loans totaling over ₹25 lakhs from her salary account, which he spent on alcohol and luxury instead of purchasing land as promised.

• Abuse and Theft: She claimed he subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, eventually running away with her household articles, jewelry, and car.

• Existing Maintenance: The wife pointed out that the husband was already awarded ₹5,000 per month in interim maintenance in their pending divorce case.

Procedural History and Court Observations (Sections 6-9)

• Inconsistent Attendance: The court noted the petitioner and his counsel frequently failed to appear for hearings or requested adjournments.

• Concealment of Facts: An Amicus Curiae highlighted that the petitioner hid the fact that he was already receiving maintenance and that the very proceedings he wanted to "expedite" had already been stayed by another bench.

• Financial Capacity: Evidence, including the petitioner's ITR, suggested he had a construction business and significant family property, contradicting his claim of being "wholly dependent".

Jurisprudential Deliberations and Legal Principles (Sections 10-31)

• Ineligibility for Maintenance: The court observed that under Section 144 of the BNSS (formerly Section 125 Cr.PC), a husband is generally not entitled to claim maintenance from his wife.

• Economic Abuse: The court discussed the concept of marriage as a partnership of equity, noting that the law must intervene when the relationship becomes a vehicle for "sustained economic and emotional exploitation".

• Need for Restitution: It emphasized that compensatory costs should serve as a corrective measure to restore the economic dignity of an aggrieved spouse who has been financially depleted.

Final Judgment and Directions (Sections 32-39)

• Dismissal and Costs: The court dismissed the petition as lacking bona fides and imposed a compensatory cost of ₹15,00,000 on the husband, to be paid to the wife within six weeks.

• Expedited Divorce Trial: The Principal Judge of the Family Court in Prayagraj was directed to expedite the divorce proceedings and conclude them within the timeframe set by Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

• Security and Conduct: Specific directions were given for in-camera proceedings if necessary to ensure privacy and for the provision of security to the wife within court premises.

• Inquiry into Perjury: The Family Court was directed to inquire into the initiation of proceedings against the husband for filing false affidavits and concealing material facts.

• Recovery Mechanism: If the cost is not paid, the District Magistrate is authorized to recover it as arrears of land revenue and ensure no third-party interest is created in the husband's properties.

Sources:

• A227A_12198_2025