HC fines man `15 lakh for hiding facts in maintenance case
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an advocate seeking expeditious disposal of a maintenance case against his wife, terming the litigation “vexatious” and “born out of pretences”.
Justice Vinod Diwakar imposed a compensatory cost of `15 lakh on the petitioner-husband for suppressing material facts in his affidavits and subjecting his wife to systemic depletion.
The court observed that the man, an able-bodied practising advocate, had not only concealed a prior maintenance order in his favour, but also diverted substantial personal loans taken by his wife for his own “luxurious life” and “alcoholic drinks”.
According to the facts of the case, the petitioner and the respondent were married on May 18, 2019. At the time, both were preparing for competitive examinations.
Shortly after, the wife secured a job as an additional private secretary in the Allahabad High Court, while the petitioner, despite being a law graduate and a registered advocate, remained unemployed.
Soon disputes arose, leading to multiple litigations. The husband filed a maintenance application before a principal judge in the family court in Etawah.
He then approached the High Court with a prayer to expedite the proceedings, claiming that he had no independent source of income for survival.
It was submitted on behalf of the wife that on November 10, 2020, her husband took a personal loan of `11.50 lakh from her salary account in the SBI having a branch in the Lucknow bench of the High Court by “fraudulently” taking her into confidence on a false promise to purchase a plot of land.
On October 6, 2022, the petitioner again took a personal loan of `13.56 lakh to be repaid in six years from the respondent’s salary account in the Jhalwa branch of the SBI in Prayagraj.
The respondent-wife has been paying a monthly EMI of `26,020 since then, which she will pay till October, 2028.
According to the respondent, the loan was taken under the guise of purchasing a plot, but the petitioner fraudulently kept transferring the loan amount into his personal account through UPI and exhausted it on alcoholic drinks, luxurious lifestyle, and other nefarious activities.
It was also argued that “fed up by the petitioner, the wife filed a divorce petition, and on May 20, 2025, her husband filed an application for maintenance based on concocted and false averments”.
Allowing the application, the family court on September 15, 2025, directed the wife to pay `5,000 per month as interim maintenance and `10,000 towards litigation expenses.
Challenging the order, the wife filed a review application, which is pending before the family court in Prayagraj.
