Allahabad High Court directs husband to pay ₹15 lakh costs to wife for draining her finances via loans

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday directed a husband to pay ₹15 lakh to his wife after finding that he had coerced her to take two loans against her salary account and transferred the entire amount received from one loan to his own account. 

Justice Vinod Diwakar was hearing a petition filed by the husband seeking expeditious disposal of his plea before a family court for maintenance from his wife.

The Bench, however, found that the husband had approached the Court numerous times with incorrect and misleading facts.

The Court noted that a family court in September 2025 had allowed an application moved by the husband under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking maintenance and ordered the wife to pay him interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month and ₹10,000 towards legal expenses.

It said even this fact was concealed by the husband.

His conduct of suppressing material facts and pursuing parallel remedies, while seeking equitable relief, disentitles him from any indulgence, the High Court said.

It also took note of the economic abuse suffered by the wife and imposed heavy costs on the husband.

"This Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lacks bona-fides and does not warrant exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vests with this Court. Accordingly, the equity demands the present petition is dismissed with the compensatory cost of ₹15,00,000 to be given to the respondent- wife within six weeks from today by way of demand draft. The demand draft be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court, who shall in turn, hand over the same to the respondent-wife," the Court ordered.

The Court directed that in case he fails to make the payment, District Magistrate of Etawah shall recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Further, the Court ordered an inquiry into the movable and immovable assets owned and possessed by the husband.

The Court also directed the family court at Prayagraj to initiate appropriate proceedings against the husband for filing false affidavits before courts and concealing material particulars.

The case involved a couple who married in 2019 and now engaged in multiple litigations due to matrimonial disputes. The wife serves as an Additional Private Secretary at the High Court. The husband, enrolled as a lawyer with the State Bar Council, stated that he previously worked as a contractor and has no steady source of income

The Court found that wife initially had taken a personal loan of ₹11.50 Lakh on her salary account and subsequently paid it back.

Thereafter, at the persistent request of her husband to save the matrimonial life, she again took a personal loan of ₹13.56 lakh and since then has been regularly paying regular monthly installments of ₹26,020, the Court noted.

It added that the husband then transferred the entire loan amount to his accounts.

"It is also admitted position that the huge amount (almost entire amount) has been transferred by petitioner into his personal account without knowledge and consent of the respondent-wife. It is also admitted position that no land has been purchased as promised by the petitioner-husband from the loan amount," the Court said.

Further, the Court took a serious view of the concealment of various facts by the husband, including his income.

It noted that the husband last year had moved an application under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before a trial court seeking maintenance from her. However, following a transfer plea by the wife, the proceedings in the matter were stayed by the High Court.

The Court said immediately after filing the maintenance case, the husband had approached the High Court with the present petition seeking direction to expedite the maintenance proceeding pending before the family judge at Etawah. However, it noted that he failed to disclose the fact that proceedings in the maintenance case were stayed by a co-ordinate bench.

Considering the stay order, the Court ruled that the prayer for expeditious disposal was rendered infructuous and legally unsustainable. The Court also said that it cannot remain oblivious to the fact that Section 144 BNSS primarily contemplates grant of maintenance to wives, children and parents.

Taking note of the financial abuse suffered by the wife, the Court observed that the traditional and narrow understanding of litigation costs is inadequate in context of the evolving realities of marital relationships, particularly in cases involving economic abuse.

The Court added that economic abuse within marriage operates in insidious ways – through control over income, coercive appropriation of assets, and the gradual erosion of financial independence.

It further said that an aggrieved spouse, often acting in good faith and with the expectation of marital stability, may tolerate such conduct until the harm becomes irreversible.

"In such circumstances, limiting compensatory costs to direct financial loss fails to capture the full extent of the injustice," the Bench added.

The Court further said that imposition of financial liability, whether through maintenance, compensation or restitution, serves a legitimate legal purpose in such cases.

The Court called for expanding the scope of compensatory costs to include elements of restitution and equitable rebalancing, particularly in cases of marital exploitation.

It underscored that courts must move beyond viewing marriage as a private sphere insulated from rigorous legal scrutiny.

"Instead, they should recognize that power imbalances within marriage can give rise to legally cognizable harm. By expanding the scope of remedies to include compensatory and restitutionary elements, the law can better address the full spectrum of injury suffered by the aggrieved spouse. Such an evolution would not undermine the institution of marriage; rather, it would reinforce its foundational values by ensuring that it cannot be misused as a tool for exploitation," the Court said.

The Court added that as societal understandings of marriage continue to change, the law must adapt to ensure that justice remains both relevant and effective.

Meanwhile, the Court said that it would be in the interest of justice and right, if the pending litigation between the parties are concluded at the earliest.

It, therefore, directed the family court at Prayagraj to expedite proceedings in the divorce case filed by the wife. The Court also ordered that wife's review plea against payment of maintenance to her husband be decided within four weeks.

Advocates Arun Kumar Soni and Kumar Anubhav appeared for the petitioner-husband.

Advocate Amrita Rai Mishra was amicus curiae in the case.

Advocate Vijeta Singh appeared for the wife.