Wife’s LinkedIn profile no proof of income to deny maintenance: Court | Personal Finance

A wife’s professional qualifications, LinkedIn profile or social media photographs cannot be used as standalone evidence to deny her maintenance.

 

A Bengaluru Sessions Court has clarified that the ability to earn is not the same as having sufficient income to support oneself, particularly when a woman is responsible for raising a minor child.

 

The ruling is significant for working and professionally qualified women involved in matrimonial disputes, as it reinforces that maintenance decisions must be based on actual financial circumstances rather than assumptions about employment or earning potential.

 

The court was hearing cross-appeals filed by a husband and wife against a magistrate’s order in a domestic violence case. The husband had argued that his wife, an engineering graduate with an SAP qualification, was capable of earning and was employed in a private company. He relied on her LinkedIn profile, Facebook photographs and other pictures to support his claim.

  

However, the court found that he had not produced evidence establishing her actual income. It observed that even if she had secured employment after 2023 that alone did not establish that she earned enough to maintain herself and her child.

 

The court consequently directed the husband to pay Rs 20,000 per month to his wife from the date of her petition, subject to adjustment against maintenance awarded in other proceedings.

 

Earning capacity is different from actual income

 

Apoorva Pandey, advocate, Supreme Court, said courts must distinguish between a person’s ability to earn and having sufficient independent income. A professional profile or academic qualification cannot establish financial independence without supporting evidence.

 

Tushar Kumar, advocate, Supreme Court, said courts must examine the nature, continuity and amount of income rather than draw conclusions from a person’s professional identity. He pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which emphasised comprehensive financial disclosures in maintenance proceedings.

 

According to Kumar, relevant documents can include income-tax returns, Form 16, salary slips, employment agreements and bank statements showing salary credits. The husband who claims that his wife is financially independent should support the allegation with reliable evidence.

 

Alay Razvi, managing partner, Accord Juris, said the ruling reinforces that maintenance cannot be denied merely because a woman is educated or appears professionally active online. Both spouses must disclose their earnings and assets honestly.

 

Childcare responsibilities also matter

 

The court also considered the wife’s responsibility for raising her minor son. It observed that a mother who has custody of a child spends not only money but also considerable time and effort on upbringing, which cannot be measured entirely in monetary terms.

 

Kashish Seth, partner, Trinetra Legal, said the ruling highlights two important aspects of matrimonial litigation. First, maintenance claims under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act must be assessed on their merits. Second, social media profiles and photographs, particularly those produced during arguments, cannot establish employment or actual earnings without supporting evidence.

 

Rohit Jain, managing partner, Singhania & Co, said economic deprivation can independently constitute domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act, even where physical abuse is not established. He added that educational qualifications or theoretical employability cannot, without proof of sufficient income, disqualify a woman from maintenance.

 

What does the ruling mean for maintenance claims?

 

Shubh Jain, associate, TAS Law, said the judgment makes it clear that professional qualifications and social media profiles cannot automatically establish financial independence. He added that a subsequent divorce decree does not extinguish statutory remedies arising from a previous domestic relationship.

 

The court also upheld the existing orders directing the husband to pay Rs 15,000 per month towards the child’s maintenance, Rs 1.60 lakh annually towards educational expenses and Rs 8 lakh as compensation to the wife. It also granted her protection under Section 18 of the Act.

 

For couples involved in maintenance disputes, the ruling highlights the importance of financial disclosure and documentary evidence. Courts must consider actual earnings, reasonable expenses, the standard of living during marriage, the financial capacity of both spouses and childcare responsibilities.

 

The decision does not mean that a wife’s income is irrelevant or that maintenance is automatic. Rather, it establishes that qualifications and potential employment cannot substitute for proof of sufficient earnings.