Maintenance | Salary Payslips Constitute Cogent Evidence To Determine Income Status Of Parties: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that salary payslips form cogent evidence to determine the income status of both husband and wife while deciding an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 293]

The bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal further held that the Family Court erred in assuming the income of the wife based on her affidavit and ought to have directed her to produce her payslips:

"the Family Court ought to have directed both the parties to produce the current pay slip on record, as the same constitutes cogent evidence for determining the Income/financial status of parties to the lis and then on that basis ought to have passed the impugned order awarding maintenance to the respondents. Without there being any proper proof of income of Respondent 1/wife the Family Court is not right in accepting the income of Respondent 1/wife to be Rs.6,000/- per month". 

A criminal revision was filed by the husband challenging the order of the Family Court, wherein the wife's application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was allowed. 

The counsel for the husband claimed that the Family Court had committed illegality in passing the impugned order and in awarding the amount of maintenance to the wife without considering the actual income of the parties. The counsel claimed that the wife was residing separately without a reasonable justification. 

The counsel for the husband claimed that the wife had admitted her monthly income as ₹6,000 but did not produce any payslips. It was argued that the Family Court committed illegality in discarding the payslip of the husband showing his monthly income as ₹24,332. 

The counsel for the husband argued that although his payslips could not be exhibited in evidence, in the absence of any rebuttal, granting ₹15,000 maintenance was not sustainable in the existing facts and circumstances. 

The counsel for the wife and minor son supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the criminal revision. 

The bench noted that the Family Court took each and every aspect of the matter into consideration. The bench concurred with the Family Court's order in respect of separate living of the wife with sufficient cause. 

Regarding the grant of maintenance, the court noted that both the husband and wife were employed. As per the wife's affidavit, she is working as a Library Assistant in Government College but failed to produce her payslip, which is required to be filed in all maintenance cases in compliance with the Supreme Court case of Rajnesh v Neha. 

Examining Para 13 of the impugned order, the bench noted that the Family Court presumed the husband's income as ₹50,000 and the wife's income as ₹6,000. Thus, the Family Court had committed illegality by accepting the income of the wife as ₹6,000 based on the wife's affidavit and in the presence of the husband's pay slip. 

The court held that the Family Court should have directed the parties to produce the current payslips on record as the same is cogent evidence for determining the financial status of the parties. The Family Court should have passed the maintenance order based on the payslips. 

Thus, the bench directed; 

"Since the aforesaid aspect has not been considered properly and in real perspective, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Family Court to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh after restoring the application to its original number". 

Case Title: R v R, CRR No.4116-2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 293

For Petitioner: Advocates Nilesh Kotecha with Namrata Kotecha

For Respondent: Advocate Paritosh Trivedi

Click here to read/download the Order