Took ₹25 Lakh from Wife, Then Sought Maintenance From Her: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹15 Lakh Cost On Husband

A husband who approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to expedite his maintenance case against his wife has been ordered to pay ₹15 lakh in costs, after the court found that he had coerced her into taking loans worth over ₹25 lakh and misused the money.

A petition was filed by the husband under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to fast-track proceedings in a maintenance case instituted by him under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Family Court in Etawah to receive maintenance from his wife.

Rejecting the plea, court recorded serious findings on the husband’s conduct, noting that the wife had taken loans of ₹11.5 lakh and ₹13.56 lakh “on the insistence” of the husband, and that the entire amount was transferred into his accounts and “unauthorizedly misused”.

It found that despite the loans being taken on the pretext of purchasing land, no such asset was created, while bank records showed frequent withdrawals and high-value transactions. The wife continues to repay monthly instalments of ₹26,020 from her salary.

The parties were married on May 18, 2019, in Etawah. While both were initially preparing for competitive examinations, the wife secured employment as an Additional Private Secretary at the Allahabad High Court shortly after the marriage. The husband later obtained a law degree and enrolled as an advocate, but claimed to have no independent income and sought maintenance from his wife.

The relationship soon deteriorated, leading to multiple proceedings between the parties, including criminal cases filed by the wife alleging cruelty and dowry harassment, and a divorce petition pending before the family court in Prayagraj. The husband also initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance.

Significantly, in the pending divorce case, the family court had already granted the husband ₹5,000 per month as interim maintenance and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Despite this, the husband filed a fresh maintenance application under Section 144 BNSS before the Etawah court and approached the high court seeking its expeditious disposal.

The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar found that the very proceedings he sought to expedite had already been stayed by a coordinate bench in a transfer petition filed by the wife. It further noted that the husband had concealed both the stay order and the earlier maintenance granted to him while filing affidavits.

The bench further observed that the husband's conduct amounted to economic abuse within marriage, where one spouse systematically depleted the financial resources of the other.

Court underlined that the law cannot remain indifferent to such exploitation and that financial liability imposed in such cases serves a corrective purpose by restoring the aggrieved spouse’s economic position and dignity.

Holding that the petitioner had approached the court with suppression of material facts and false pleadings, court said a litigant invoking supervisory jurisdiction must come with clean hands, which was absent in the present case.

Court also questioned the maintainability of the husband’s claim, observing that an able-bodied person and practising advocate cannot portray himself as wholly dependent on his wife without full disclosure of his financial status.

Taking note of the pattern of litigation and the petitioner’s conduct, court concluded that the plea was devoid of bona fides and amounted to abuse of the judicial process.

Dismissing the petition, the high court directed the husband to pay ₹15 lakh as compensatory costs to the wife within six weeks through the Registrar General.

Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of pending proceedings and directed the family court at Prayagraj to expedite the divorce case. It also left it open for the trial court to examine initiation of proceedings regarding false affidavits filed by the husband.

Case Title: Xxx vs. Yyy

Order Date: April 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar