LI Network
Published on: February 17, 2024 at 23:15 IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasized that when a husband fails to specifically deny his alleged income during the initial stages of a maintenance suit, he cannot later raise objections after a maintenance order is passed.
Justice B.S. Bhanumathi passed the order in a Civil Revision Petition filed by the husband against the interim order of the Civil Court in a divorce petition initiated by his wife.
The interim order directed the husband to pay INR 5,16,000/- towards maintenance and arrears pending the final disposal of the divorce petition.
The husband, in his counter, did not explicitly deny his earnings but claimed that the wife failed to provide evidence supporting her stated income.
The trial Court considered the husband’s earning capacity while determining the maintenance amount.
The respondent, in an interlocutory application, highlighted the husband’s substantial monthly salary of INR 60,000/- and accused him of neglecting financial responsibilities towards their son, who required surgery for certain ailments. The respondent, being financially dependent on the husband, sought maintenance.
The trial Court granted the petition for maintenance, prompting the husband to approach the High Court. The husband relied on a Supreme Court decision, arguing that the trial Court’s order should be set aside due to the non-filing of the statement of assets and income.
However, the High Court held that the husband had not raised objections regarding the non-filing of the statement during the initial proceedings, depriving the trial Court of an opportunity to decide on that aspect.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the maintenance order.
This ruling, in the case with CRP 3352 of 2023, sets a precedent emphasizing the importance of addressing income-related disputes promptly during maintenance suits to avoid subsequent challenges to Court orders.
The legal proceedings were represented by M/s Indus Law Firm for the petitioner and N. Sai Phanindra Kumar for the respondent.