Appeal dismissed — ruling against Sumit Chaturvedi (Revisionist)
In Short
A husband tried to avoid paying monthly maintenance to his wife and daughter by claiming he had quit his job and that his wife ran a pickle factory. The High Court rejected his claims because he showed no proof of resigning and no proof of the factory, ordering him to pay ₹12,000 per month to his wife and ₹2,000 per month to his daughter.
The Parties
Party A: Sumit Chaturvedi
Party B: Smt. Deepa Chaturvedi and minor daughter Km. Samridhi
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mr. Neeraj Srivastava
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay
What the Case Was About
A married couple separated after disputes arose, and the wife filed a case asking for financial support for herself and her young daughter. The husband argued he did not owe anything because he had resigned from his private job due to false cases and had no income left. He also claimed his wife was a practicing advocate, an oath commissioner, and ran a pickle factory, making her financially independent. The lower family court ordered the husband to pay monthly maintenance, prompting him to challenge that order in the High Court.
Judgment Date
12 October, 2026
The Outcome
The criminal revision filed by the husband was dismissed, and the family court's maintenance order directing him to pay monthly support to his wife and daughter was upheld.
What the Court Looked At
- The court noted that the marriage and the birth of the daughter were fully admitted by the husband.
- The court observed that the husband failed to submit any certified copy or formal proof of his resignation from his job.
- The court considered official service and payment records showing the husband's annual income was assessed at ₹8 lakh back in 2011.
- The court rejected the husband's claim about a pickle factory because he produced zero documentary evidence to support it.
- The court acknowledged the wife is a practicing advocate with only nominal earnings, unable to comfortably sustain herself and the child alone.
"Since revisionist has not submitted any proof with regard to resignation of his service, therefore, it appears that he is working at present and earning more than in the year, 2011."
What This Means For You
This case sends a very clear warning to anyone trying to dodge family financial responsibilities by pretending to be unemployed. Simply standing up in court and saying "I resigned and have no money" will not work if you cannot present official, written proof of your job loss. Courts rely on concrete evidence, and if you previously earned a decent salary, judges will assume you are still capable of earning unless you prove otherwise with solid documents. Vague accusations about your spouse running hidden businesses like a pickle factory will also be instantly dismissed without actual proof. If you find yourself facing maintenance disputes, make sure your claims are backed by hard facts rather than verbal excuses. Setback Solutions can help you understand your options and coordinate next steps with clarity.
You Still Have Options
Dealing with unexpected maintenance orders and family court disputes can feel overwhelming, especially if you feel your financial reality was misunderstood. Whether you are facing heavy financial demands or struggling to prove your actual income, it is not the end of the road. You can still explore options like getting a second opinion, reviewing your paperwork, or seeking non-judicial guidance. Reach out to Setback Solutions for help understanding your options and coordinating the next step. Please remember, Setback Solutions is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or guarantee any specific court outcome.