₹1.7 crore home loan, fall in income, educated wife yet ₹2 lakh monthly maintenance: Gurgaon court explains why
Can one escape monthly maintenance obligations after a decline in income shown in an income tax return (ITR)? The answer is not that simple. A family court in Gurgaon has ordered a man who works as a senior Deloitte executive to pay ₹2 lakh every month to his estranged wife and children. He claimed that his annual income had fallen sharply, along with other financial liabilities.
Despite his ITR filings, the court ordered him to pay the monthly maintenance.
Salary fell to ₹36 lakh, but court was not convinced
According to a report by The Times of India, the couple got married in Lucknow on 12 July 2005 and welcomed twins. Initially, the wife sought ₹4 lakh per month as maintenance for herself and the children. She also asked for ₹7.5 lakh as litigation expenses.
The husband reportedly argued that his financial circumstances had changed, with his net annual salary falling to around ₹36 lakh. He cited home loan liabilities of ₹1.7 crore, in addition to his responsibilities to his parents.
He also showed the court that he was already spending around ₹19.2 lakh annually for his children’s boarding school education.
However, the family court found the explanation for the substantial decline in income unsatisfactory, especially since the husband continued to hold the same role in the organisation. His previous income disclosures placed him in a significantly higher tax slab, including around ₹2 crore in assessment year 2023-24 and ₹2.9 crore in 2024-25, before his claims on salary decline
The court considered his previous earning capacity while deciding on the maintenance amount.
Paying school fees does not end financial obligations
The court ruled out the distinction between children’s education expenses and broader maintenance obligations.
As reported by The Economic Times, Principal Judge Poonam Kanwar noted that paying the children’s school fees did not cover all their financial needs. The children continued to have other daily expenses. Therefore, the wife’s maintenance also had to be assessed separately.
The court eventually directed the husband to pay ₹2 lakh by the 10th of every month, alongside children’s educational fees and another ₹50,000 towards litigation costs.
Can an educated wife be denied maintenance?
The husband reportedly argued that his wife was highly educated and capable of earning. His counsel further alleged that the wife didn’t disclose certain assets, including a PPF account and fixed deposits, alongside her foreign tours, including a trip to Georgia.
The court rejected these arguments at the interim stage.
Manmeet Kaur, Partner at Karanjawala & Co, explained to ET Wealth Online that an educated spouse cannot automatically be denied maintenance just because she has qualifications or potential to earn. Education doesn’t simply mean that a person is currently employed or earning.
The allegations regarding undisclosed assets and foreign travel were also treated as disputed questions which required substantial evidence. Such claims, at the interim stage, cannot be treated as solid grounds to deny maintenance.
What it means for maintenance disputes?
The case serves as an important example for individuals involved in maintenance proceedings, particularly when a significant difference between a person’s current declared income and previous earnings is spotted.
Kaur shared that if a spouse is relying on a sharp fall in declared income to establish a reduction in maintenance amount, the court may examine the reason behind the decline. This is even more crucial when the person’s employment status and position remain unchanged.
The court ruling also establishes that earning capacity is not determined solely by the latest ITR filing. A court may seek one’s past income, seniority and other financial circumstances while deciding on maintenance.
The above case also highlights another key point–allegations about undisclosed assets, investments or spending patterns must be supported by evidence. Such allegations cannot be automatically treated as proven during interim proceedings.
In this case, the family court ultimately balanced the husband’s claim regarding a fall in income and financial liabilities against his past earning capacity and continuing in the same position. Therefore, the court ordered him to pay ₹2 lakh in monthly maintenance alongside other liabilities.
