Maintenance: Supreme Court Seeks Husband’s Salary Details, Assets Over Rs 18 Lakh Owed To Wife, Daughter

The Supreme Court recently sought details of a man's salary, employment and assets after he claimed that he had no means to pay Rs 18 lakh towards maintenance arrears owed to his estranged wife and daughter, observing that the matter could not be allowed to rest there.

The Bench of Justices K V Vishwanathan and Arun Palli ordered the man's alleged employers to furnish details of his salary and emoluments to ascertain his financial capacity.

The Bench also told advocate Dushyant Prasahar, appearing for the husband, that the court would go into the root of the matter, saying that “the long arm of law will catch him".

Why did the Supreme Court seek the husband’s salary details?

The present proceedings arose from a maintenance claim filed by the wife. The concerned trial court had, on January 15, 2007, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs 2,000 per month to their minor daughter, with effect from December 20, 2005, the date of filing of the case.

Thereafter, by an order dated October 17, 2015, the concerned court modified the maintenance amount to Rs 6,000 per month in all for the wife and daughter.

Both parties challenged the order before the Jharkhand High Court, which maintained the trial court's order.

When the matter came up before the Supreme Court on February 17, 2026, the apex court directed the husband to pay 50% of the arrears, amounting to Rs 18 lakh, within four weeks.

However, when the matter came up again on April 28, 2026, Court noted that neither the husband nor anyone on his behalf had appeared and that the directed amount had also not been paid. Court consequently issued non-bailable warrants against him and directed that he be produced before it.

When asked why he had not paid the amount, the husband told the bench that he did not have the means to pay any amount.

Taking a serious view of the submission, the Bench said, “We cannot let the matter rest here".

Where was the husband working?

Senior advocate Shashi Nandan, appearing for the wife, submitted that the husband was working at Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited (TVNL), situated at Dhurva, Ranchi.

The husband, however, denied this and claimed that he was working with a contractor, Aryan Enterprises, in Bokaro, which in turn worked for TVNL.

The Supreme Court noted that there were circumstances raising questions about his actual employment.

“When we enquired from the respondent, as to where he is residing, he stated that he is residing in an accommodation provided by the contractor. When we ask Satyendra Ram, Sub Inspector of Police, as to where the respondent was picked up from, he stated that it was from the ‘quarters’ of TVNL,” the Bench noted.

In view of these circumstances, Court directed the Managing Director of TVNL to file an affidavit before the next date of hearing stating whether the husband was an employee of TVNL.

The Managing Director was also directed to explain how and in what capacity the husband was occupying the TVNL quarters.

Court also issued notice to Champa Sharma, proprietor of Aryan Enterprises, directing her to disclose in what capacity the husband was associated with her firm.

Supreme Court seeks details of husband’s salary, assets and bank accounts

The Bench further directed that if the husband was found to be an employee of TVNL, its Managing Director must disclose his designation and emoluments, along with documentary proof.

If he was working with Aryan Enterprises, Champa Sharma was directed to disclose the emoluments paid to him and annex proper documentary proof of the payments made.

“We, further, direct respondent to file an affidavit of the movable and immovable assets held by him including details of bank accounts,” the Bench ordered.

Court also granted the husband the benefit of bail until the next date of hearing, subject to his appearing within three days before the Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, and executing a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

The Supreme Court allowed the Managing Director of TVNL, Champa Sharma and the husband to appear through video conferencing on the next date of hearing, August 25, 2026.

Case Title: Shusma Dayal Vs The State of Jharkhand & And

Bench: Justices K V Vishwanathan and Arun Palli

Date of order: July 30, 2026