Trial Court Can't Place Entire Burden Of Proving Husband's Income On Wife: MP High Court Grants Maintenance

While granting maintenance to the wife and enhancing the maintenance amount of the minor child, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the trial court had wrongly placed the entire burden of proving the husband's income. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 250]

Emphasizing that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare proceeding, the bench of Justice Gajendra Singh held that the husband ought to have been asked to disclose all material facts regarding his income.

The bench held:

"The order of the trial Court reveals that the entire burden was wrongly placed upon the wife to prove the husband's source of income. It is not an adversarial litigation; rather, it is a social welfare proceeding. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have placed the burden upon the husband to disclose all material facts regarding his income.The husband is an M.Tech. and MBA and is working as DGM at EKI Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vijay Nagar, Indore. As per his affidavit filed in compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 , dated 11.03.2025, after more than one  decade of marital life and while maintaining a child of 10 years, the wife cannot be presumed to be earning so as to disentitle her from maintenance. 

The approach of the trial Court is not in accordance with law. The source of income may be concealed, but the status cannot be concealed. The husband cannot escape his liability to maintain the wife and minor child in accordance with their standard of living"

A criminal revision was filed by a wife challenging the order of the Family Court wherein her claim for maintenance was rejected, while ₹20,000 was granted as maintenance to the minor child (respondent no 2). Through this revision, the wife sought a grant of maintenance and enhancement of maintenance for the minor child. 

Per the facts, the couple solemnised their marriage on May 6, 2013, and the child was born on October 11, 2015. The wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on March 9, 2024, because she was ill-treated, her husband had an extramarital affair, and she suffered from abuse and neglect.

The wife also claimed that she had been residing separately from the husband since 2024. The wife had demanded maintenance of ₹3 lakhs, contending that the husband runs a private company, namely ECOCARB Private Ltd and also receives a salary of ₹3 Lakhs working as DGM in EKI Energy Pvt.

The husband replied to the application, contending that she had left him without any reason and claimed that his parents suffered a brain stroke from the wife's actions. The husband claimed that the wife held a B.E. in engineering. 

The Family Court noted that the husband had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, but that the wife refused to cohabit with the husband. Noting that the husband was earning only ₹60,000, the Family Court awarded only ₹20,000 as maintenance to the wife. 

The court noted that the wife was caring for the minor child. Further, the court from the FIR noted that the wife was residing separately with sufficient cause. The bench noted that the wife's marital obligations are not confined to the husband but also towards a minor child.

Further, the bench noted that the Trial Court erred since it considered the application on the ground that the husband wished for the constitution of conjugal rights without appreciating the evidence on record. 

Thus, the bench held:

"Accordingly, this revision petition succeeds, and an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded in favour of revision petitioner No.1, and the maintenance awarded to revision petitioner No.2/minor child is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- per month to Rs.30,000/- per month, both effective from the date of application towards their maintenance". 

Case Title: G v S, CRR-512-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 250

For Petitioners: Advocate Shashank Sharma 

For Respondent: Advocate Rajat Raghuwanshi

Click here to read/download the Order