Bombay High Court slaps ₹1 lakh cost on techie for evading maintenance payment to wife

The Bombay High Court recently imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on a software engineer for his "systematic attempt" to evade paying maintenance to his wife and minor daughter [Y v A]..The man had sought a revision of the maintenance amount, citing financial difficulties that arose after he was allegedly forced to resign from his earlier job and switch to a low-paying job. The Court, however, found inconsistencies in his statement and concluded that the claim that his salary had dropped from ₹5.5 lakhs per month to just about ₹20,000 was “unbelievable.""It is unbelievable that the Petitioner who is a Software Engineer and working as 'Software Developer' and was getting salary of Rs 65,00,000 per annum i.e salary of Rs 5,50,000 per month is now getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month," Justice Madhav Jamdar said..The judge also noted that his updated matrimonial profile listed his income as ₹35-50 lakh annually, contradicting his claims in Court.The Court proceeded to dismiss the man's plea by its March 19 order and directed that he pay the ₹1 lakh costs imposed on him to his estranged wife within four we.The case stemmed from ongoing divorce proceedings between a software engineer from Pune and his wife. The couple married in April 2016 and had a daughter in 2017. By January 2020, they were living separately, and the software engineer filed for divorce in September 2020.During the case, he claimed that he had to resign from his job at a software company after an accident in August 2021. However, the Court noted that he never mentioned this accident in his initial applications, including one filed to modify the maintenance order in 2023.In September 2022, the Civil Judge in Pune had ordered him to pay ₹30,000 per month as maintenance to his wife and daughter, along with EMI for mortgage payments.He later filed an application to modify this order, citing financial difficulties due to a new, much lower-paying job. Yet, he still did not mention the accident as the reason for his resignation until he filed an affidavit in February 2025, a year and a half later. The Court questioned the timing of this new claim..The wife presented evidence of large sums of money the software engineer had transferred to family members during this period, arguing that he was trying to avoid paying maintenance. She also pointed out that his matrimonial profile still listed a much higher income, which further contradicted his claims of financial hardship.The husband's counsel argued that his employment at the software company ended because of the accident and subsequent medical leave, but the Court found his explanation inconsistent. The wife’s lawyer pointed out that his actions appeared to be an effort to hide his financial status and avoid paying maintenance..In his ruling, Justice Jamdar criticized the software engineer for approaching the Court with "unclean hands."“It has been observed that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. His case can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation,” the judge added, while emphasizing that courts cannot entertain petitions built on false statements and dismissing the husband's plea. .Advocate Naina Sharma, along with Advocate Gauri Bandre appeared for the husbandAdvocate Amol Jagtap, along with Advocate Deepika Tendulkar and instructed by Advocate Vinayak Pandit appeared for the wife. .[Read Order]