Diamond factory owner hid income. Supreme Court still raised his maintenance.

He owned a diamond factory. He refused to show his income tax returns. The High Court raised his wife's maintenance from Rs 6,000 to Rs 1 lakh a month. The Supreme Court of India, in December 2024, had to decide whether a man who hid his true earnings could then complain that the court had guessed too high — and whether the money he owed his wife could be taken from assets that his other creditors thought belonged to them.

The courtroom fell silent when the husband's lawyer argued financial hardship. On the bench, a stack of case files sat untouched — the husband had not filed a single income tax return despite repeated court orders. The wife's handwritten application, folded and refolded, lay somewhere in that pile, a quiet record of years of struggle.

When the diamond factory owner stopped paying

The husband and wife had been married for years. Two children. The husband ran a diamond factory in Surat — a business that can mean anything from a modest workshop to a substantial enterprise. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC (a legal provision that allows a wife, child, or parent to claim monthly maintenance from a spouse or parent who refuses to support them).

The Family Court in Surat ordered the husband to pay Rs 6,000 per month to the wife and Rs 3,000 per month to each child. Total: Rs 12,000 per month. Roughly the rent of a one-bedroom apartment in a small town. The wife believed her husband could afford far more. She challenged the order in the High Court of Gujarat.

The procedural journey tells its own story. The case began as a simple application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court in Surat. That court, after hearing both sides, fixed the maintenance at the modest figures the wife found inadequate. She then filed a revision application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, which passed its order on 12 September 2022. The husband, aggrieved by that enhancement, filed Special Leave Petitions that were ultimately converted into Criminal Appeal Nos.5148-5149 of 2024, heard by a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Seventeen times more

In September 2022, the Gujarat High Court took a different view. It raised the wife's maintenance to Rs 1,00,000 per month and each child's maintenance to Rs 50,000 per month. From Rs 12,000 to Rs 2,00,000 per month. A seventeen-fold increase.

The High Court had a reason. The husband was an income tax assessee (a person who files tax returns). The court ordered him to produce his income tax returns so it could determine his actual earnings. The husband refused. He did not comply. Under Indian evidence law, when a party withholds documents in their possession, the court can draw an "adverse inference" — meaning it can assume the documents would have hurt that party's case. The High Court drew that inference. It concluded the husband's income was substantial enough to justify the higher maintenance.

The silence in the courtroom when the husband's counsel was asked about the tax returns was telling. No explanation was offered. No documents were produced. The court had no choice but to proceed on the basis that the husband's true income was far higher than he was willing to admit.

"I cannot pay" — "Show us what you earn"

The husband appealed to the Supreme Court. He argued the High Court had been unreasonable. He claimed financial difficulties. His business had suffered losses, he said. He asked the Supreme Court to reduce the maintenance to something he could actually pay.

The wife and children opposed the appeal. They pointed out: the husband had never shown his tax returns. They argued the High Court's inference was fair — a man who owns a diamond factory and refuses to disclose his income cannot later complain that the court overestimated it.

The Supreme Court noted the husband's failure squarely. The Court observed that where there is no proper documentary evidence before the court to assess the income of the maintenance obligor, and the obligor has failed to produce income tax documents despite directions, the court may fix maintenance at an amount that is just and fair based on totality of circumstances, without fully accepting either party's claims. This principle became the foundation of the judgment.

The split verdict: less going forward, but arrears survive

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. It reduced the maintenance going forward — from Rs 1,00,000 to Rs 50,000 per month for the wife, and from Rs 50,000 to Rs 25,000 per month for each child. But the Court made a crucial distinction: the higher amounts would still apply as arrears (the money owed from the date of the High Court order until the Supreme Court's judgment).

The Court's reasoning was practical. The husband had not provided any documentary evidence of his income. The High Court had been justified in drawing an adverse inference. But the Supreme Court felt the High Court's figure might have been too high for a forward-looking order. It fixed what it called a "just and fair" amount based on the totality of circumstances — without fully accepting either party's claims.

The Court also addressed the husband's argument about business losses. It said claims of changed financial circumstances are questions of fact that should be raised before the Family Court under Section 127 of the CrPC (a provision that allows modification of maintenance orders when circumstances change). The Supreme Court would not decide those claims in an appeal.

The operative order was precise. The appeals were allowed in part. Maintenance was modified to Rs 50,000 per month for the wife and Rs 25,000 per month per child from the date of the High Court order. Arrears at the higher rate were preserved for the anterior period — the period before the High Court's order. Those arrears were to be paid within three months, with a preferential right over all assets superseding secured creditors. The Family Court was empowered to take coercive action including auction of immovable assets. The respondents' right to seek enhancement under Section 127 CrPC was preserved.

The real landmark: who gets paid first

The most significant part of the judgment was not about the amount of maintenance. It was about what happens when a husband does not pay.

The Supreme Court declared that maintenance arrears have a preferential right over the assets of the husband — a right that supersedes the claims of secured creditors (banks or financial institutions that hold a mortgage or charge on property) and operational creditors (suppliers or vendors who are owed money for goods or services).

The Court grounded this in Article 21 of the Constitution (the right to life and personal liberty). It held that the right to maintenance is a subset of the right to dignity. The Court reasoned that the right to maintenance is commensurate to the right to sustenance and is a subset of the right to dignity under Article 21. Maintenance arrears therefore have preferential right over assets of the obligor, superior to and overriding statutory rights of Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, and Operational Creditors under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (a law that allows banks to seize and sell assets of defaulting borrowers), the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (a law that governs the resolution of corporate debt), or similar laws.

The Court ordered that the arrears be paid within three months. It empowered the Family Court to take coercive action, including the auction of immovable assets, to recover the money. The wife and children were also given the right to seek further enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 CrPC if circumstances changed.

THE PLAY: When a maintenance obligor refuses to produce income tax returns despite court orders, the court may fix maintenance based on an adverse inference — and the resulting arrears will have priority over the claims of all other creditors, including banks and secured lenders.

The court ended where the case began

The Supreme Court reduced the monthly payments. But it preserved the arrears. The diamond factory owner who refused to show his tax returns will still have to pay the higher amounts for the period he kept his books closed. The law, the Court said, will not let a man hide his income from his wife and then hide his assets from his children. The Court's message was clear: a wife's right to sustenance, rooted in Article 21, cannot be defeated by the claims of banks or other creditors. The right to maintenance is, at its core, the right to life itself.