Ahmedabad: Hiding his true income and wealth in a matrimonial maintenance case proved costly for a 32-year-old jeweller from Jhalod town in Dahod district, as the Gujarat high court has ordered contempt of court proceedings against him. Describing him as “a poor son of a wealthy father”, the court ordered action against the jeweller for not making financial disclosures as directed by the Supreme Court in maintenance cases.While ordering the jeweller to pay Rs 50,000 as maintenance to his wife and young daughter, the bench of Justice Sangeeta Vishen and Justice Nisha Thakor said, “This court is, therefore, of the prima facie opinion that, by not taking a fair stand in the application and not filing affidavit in terms of paragraph 72.8 (of the SC judgment), the respondent-husband has shown scant regard to the direction of the Apex Court and has committed a contempt. Hence, this court deems it appropriate to direct the registry to place the matter before the bench taking up contempt matters.”The jeweller in this case got married to a dentist from Madhya Pradesh in 2017, and the couple had a daughter. However, difference arose between the couple and they filed for divorce. Pending divorce proceedings, the wife demanded maintenance, claiming that the husband and his family were wealthy, with a thriving jewellery business and multiple properties. She also stated that she was a dentist but gave up her practice on her in-laws’ insistence, and was now without any income.The husband filed an affidavit stating that he was merely working in his father’s jewellery shop and earned a meagre income. In his affidavit and a form attached to it, he left certain columns blank, omitting disclosures about his income, assets, liabilities, and dependants. He claimed that he was burdened with the financial responsibility of a six-year-old adopted son. The woman alleged that the husband might have married for the second time and adopted the woman’s son.The family court rejected the maintenance application, saying that the wife could not furnish evidence regarding the husband’s substantial income.The wife appealed in the high court, where the husband reiterated his stand that he does not earn much and only works for his father. The high court grilled the jeweller about his disclosure of income and his marital status. The judges were not convinced by his explanations and even warned him of serious consequences for hiding his actual income.The high court was convinced that the man had left no stone unturned to avoid paying maintenance. It said, “When he was confronted with the income aspect, a lame response was offered that everything belongs to his father and his family members and not him. The stand taken by the respondent-husband and the theory propounded, are based on falsehood. This court has gathered an impression that “the respondent-husband, is a poor son of a wealthy father”. The respondent-husband has exhibited the approach rather an attitude not befitting a responsible husband and an ideal father, who has constantly, despite being all the paraphernalia available, avoided the payment of maintenance to the appellant-wife and his daughter.“The HC also stated in the order, “This is a classic case of the husband, who believes in overreaching the court proceedings and subscribes to a ‘my way or the highway’ philosophy. We say this because there have been number of instances suggesting that the respondent has scant regard for the law, social values and the sanctity of relationships.”
