Gurgaon: A sharp, unexplained fall in declared income cannot by itself be used to avoid paying maintenance, a district family court has ruled. The court made the observation while directing a senior executive of Deloitte to pay Rs 2 lakh a month to his estranged wife and their two minor children.The court also rejected the argument that the wife’s educational qualification made her capable of supporting herself. It ordered the South Asia executive to pay Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses and continue bearing the children’s educational costs fully.Additional principal judge Poonam Kanwar passed the order in a divorce proceeding filed by the husband. The couple, who married in Lucknow on July 12, 2005, have twin children. The wife had sought interim maintenance of Rs 4 lakh a month for herself and the children, besides Rs 7.5 lakh towards litigation expenses.The wife’s counsel, Mayank Raghav, argued that the husband’s financial capacity was substantially higher than reflected in his latest income disclosure. His income tax returns showed taxable income of about Rs 2 crore in the assessment year 2023-24 and Rs 2.9 crore in 2024-25. It, however, dropped sharply to around Rs 1 crore in 2025-26.Raghav insisted that the fall in income was unexplained as the husband continued in the same senior position with the same organisation. The wife also alleged that he had not fully disclosed mutual fund investments worth around Rs 5 crore and other assets. She claimed she had been left without regular financial support and had to prematurely liquidate fixed deposits and take a gold loan to meet household expenses.The husband’s counsel, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, opposed the claim, arguing that the wife was highly educated and capable of earning independently. He also alleged that she had not disclosed certain assets, including a PPF account and fixed deposits, and referred to her foreign travel, including a trip to Georgia.The husband said he was already paying around Rs 19.2 lakh annually towards the children’s boarding school fees. He claimed his net annual salary had fallen to around Rs 36 lakh, while he also had home loan liabilities of Rs 1.7 crore and responsibilities towards his parents.The court, however, held that paying school fees did not exhaust his financial obligations. It noted that the children had other daily expenses and the wife’s maintenance had to be assessed separately.On the substantial fall in income, the court found the explanation unsatisfactory, particularly since the husband remained in the same employment. It, therefore, considered his earlier earning capacity while assessing the maintenance.The judge also rejected the contention that an educated wife could automatically be denied maintenance. The court said disputes over her alleged expenditure, foreign travel or undisclosed assets required evidence and could not, at the interim stage, justify denying maintenance when she claimed to have no regular income.The husband was directed to pay Rs 2 lakh every month from the date the maintenance application was filed. He was asked to pay the money by the 10th of each month.
