Why Gurgaon court upheld ₹2 lakh monthly maintenance for estranged wife despite husband’s 50% income drop

A family court in Gurgaon has directed a husband to pay ₹2 lakh a month as maintenance to his estranged wife, rejecting his argument that a fifty per cent decline in his income and ₹1.7 crore home loan liabilities had reduced his ability to make alimony payments.

The husband’s income tax returns showed that his annual taxable income had fallen by nearly 50%. However, the court did not accept the decline as sufficient justification for reducing or avoiding his maintenance obligation. It directed him to deposit ₹2 lakh with his wife by the 10th of every month.

The husband argued that his net annual salary had dropped to around ₹36 lakh. He also pointed to outstanding home loan liabilities of approximately ₹1.7 crore and said that he had financial responsibilities towards his parents.

Despite these submissions, the court maintained the monthly maintenance amount at ₹2 lakh.

The wife had originally sought ₹4 lakh per month for herself and the couple’s children, besides ₹7.5 lakh towards litigation expenses, according to a Times of India report.

Background of the case

The couple married in Lucknow on July 12, 2005, and have twin children. The wife sought monthly maintenance from her husband, who works as a senior executive with Deloitte.

In his latest plea, the husband argued that his financial circumstances had changed considerably because of the fall in his annual income. He said he was already spending approximately ₹19.2 lakh each year on the children’s boarding education.

The family court, however, was not convinced by the explanation offered for the sharp reduction in income. Since the husband continued to hold the same employment, the court considered his earlier earning capacity while assessing the appropriate maintenance amount.

Additional Principal Judge Poonam Kanwar also observed that payment of the children’s school and boarding expenses did not represent the entirety of his financial responsibilities.

The court noted that the children continued to have other day-to-day expenses and that the wife’s maintenance requirement had to be evaluated independently rather than being subsumed into the educational expenditure being incurred by the husband.

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.

One key takeaway is 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.

Can a wife’s education and earning ability affect maintenance?

The husband’s counsel argued that the wife was well educated and had the ability to earn independently. The counsel also alleged that she had not disclosed certain assets, including a PPF account and fixed deposits.

Her foreign travel, including a visit to Georgia, was also cited as an indication of her financial capacity.

The wife’s lawyer, however, maintained that the husband’s income reduction remained unexplained because he continued to work in the same senior position at Deloitte. The lawyer also argued that the husband’s actual financial capacity was considerably higher than what was reflected in his latest income declaration.

His income tax returns reportedly showed taxable income of around ₹2 crore in Assessment Year 2023-24 and approximately ₹2.9 crore in Assessment Year 2024-25. His ITR for Assessment Year 2025-26, however, showed a sharp reduction, with taxable income of around ₹1 crore.

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 ruling reinforces the distinction between allegations and established facts during interim proceedings. Disputes involving assets, foreign travel expenses or allegedly concealed income generally require evidence and cannot automatically be treated as proven while deciding an interim maintenance application.