Court directs trial court to reconsider maintenance for wife based on new income disclosures
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has ordered a remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the maintenance awarded to Smt. Ashi Verma in the case of Gaurav Verma v. State of U.P., underscoring the importance of transparency in income declarations during maintenance proceedings. The judgment was delivered by Justice Achal Sachdev on 29th May 2026, addressing criminal revisions concerning maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The case revolves around maintenance claims filed by Smt. Ashi Verma for herself and her minor son, asserting neglect by her husband, Gaurav Verma. Initially, the Family Court in Etawah awarded maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month to Ashi Verma and Rs. 5,000 per month to her son. However, Gaurav Verma challenged the order, claiming suppression of material facts regarding Ashi Verma's income.
The High Court noted that Ashi Verma had filed contradictory income statements in different proceedings. While she declared nil income in the maintenance application before the trial court, she had previously disclosed an annual income of Rs. 4,58,570 in a Habeas Corpus petition. The court emphasized the necessity of filing truthful affidavits of assets and liabilities, as mandated by the Supreme Court in the Rajnesh v. Neha case, to ensure fair maintenance determinations.
The judgment acknowledges the trial court's oversight in ignoring documentary evidence, such as income tax returns, which indicated that Ashi Verma had sufficient means. Consequently, the High Court has set aside the maintenance award to Ashi Verma, remanding the matter for fresh determination. The trial court is directed to consider all available evidence and reassess the quantum of maintenance, adhering to guidelines for transparency and fairness.
While the maintenance for the minor child remains affirmed, the court has urged the trial court to expedite the reconsideration process and issue a reasoned order within three months. Until then, Gaurav Verma is to continue paying maintenance for the child.
This ruling reiterates the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice and equity in maintenance proceedings, highlighting that any misrepresentation in income disclosures can lead to adverse consequences.
Bottom line:-
Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is mandatory for both parties to ensure transparency and fairness. Suppression or misstatement of income can lead to adverse inference or procedural consequences.
Statutory provision(s): Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 127 Cr.P.C., Section 146 BNSS, Section 340 Cr.P.C., Sections 191-193 I.P.C.
Gaurav Verma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2910624
