SHAILESH S/O HARISH ASHAPILLYA v. VIBHA W/O SHAILASH ASHAPILLYA
Duty to Disclose True Income in Domestic Violence Cases: High Court Quashes Appellate Order Reducing Maintenance and Compensation, Citing Husband's Concealment of Income.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:13943
Decision Date: 08-12-2025
List of Laws
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Maintenance Law
- Facts: The wife filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, and the Judicial Magistrate First Class granted Rs. 10,000/- each as maintenance to the wife and son, along with Rs. 10,000/- per month as rent and Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. The trial court also directed the return of Stree Dhan, gift articles, and clothes. The husband challenged this order in appeal. The Sessions Court modified the order, reducing the maintenance to Rs. 5,000/- each for the wife and son, and the compensation to Rs. 50,000/-, and quashed the order regarding rent and return of Stree Dhan. Both the wife and husband filed Criminal Writ Petitions challenging the Sessions Court's order. The wife contended that the Sessions Court's findings were perverse, while the husband argued that the wife was earning income and not entitled to maintenance or compensation.
- Procedural Posture: The wife filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 856/2024, and the husband filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1001/2024, both challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Wardha, in PWDV Appeal No. 38/2019. The High Court heard both petitions together for final disposal.
- Issue: Did the Appellate Court err in modifying the order of the Trial Court regarding maintenance and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act, particularly considering the husband's inconsistent statements and potential concealment of income?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and that the husband was concealing his true income to avoid paying maintenance. The High Court allowed the wife's petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 856/2024) and dismissed the husband's petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1001/2024), effectively quashing the Sessions Court's order.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the husband had taken different stands regarding his income at various stages of the proceedings, including admitting to running a business with his brother, then claiming no income in an affidavit, and later producing a salary certificate showing a meager income. The Court noted the observations in Rajnesh VS Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 321, emphasizing the duty to disclose true income in maintenance proceedings. The Court also relied on Mosammat Mamuda Bibi VS. Sk. Maniruddin @ Monirul & Anr. (2005) SCC OnLine Cal 172, stating that the burden lies on the husband under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to prove his income. The Court concluded that the husband's suppression of income warranted an adverse inference and that the Appellate Court should have accepted the wife's version of events. The court stated, "It is a settled position of law that fraud unravels everything."
🔒 For Members Only