In a scathing order, the Bombay High Court recently slapped a cost of ₹1 lakh on a software engineer from Pune for what it termed a “systematic attempt” to evade paying court-ordered maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter. The Court found his claims of financial hardship unconvincing and criticized him for approaching the Court with “unclean hands.”
The case stemmed from ongoing divorce proceedings between the couple, who married in April 2016 and separated in January 2020. In September 2022, a Pune Civil Judge had ordered the man to pay ₹30,000 per month as maintenance along with EMI payments for a home loan. However, he later sought a modification of this order, claiming that his income had drastically dropped after being forced to switch jobs due to an accident.
The High Court, however, found glaring inconsistencies in his statements and documents. Justice Madhav Jamdar, presiding over the case, rejected the plea, stating:
“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.”
The Court also took note of the man’s matrimonial profile, which continued to list his annual income in the range of ₹35–50 lakh—contradicting his claims of financial distress. Justice Jamdar added that the man failed to mention any accident in earlier court filings and only brought it up in a February 2025 affidavit—nearly a year and a half after the alleged incident.
His wife further submitted evidence of substantial money transfers he made to family members during this period, arguing that he was deliberately attempting to shield his assets.
Calling out the software engineer’s inconsistent explanations, the Court remarked:
“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.”
Dismissing his plea in an order dated March 19, the Court directed him to pay ₹1 lakh as cost to his wife within four weeks. The ruling sends a strong message against attempts to mislead the judiciary and avoid financial responsibilities under the guise of hardship.
