In a significant ruling that clarifies the burden of proof in matrimonial disputes, the Delhi High Court has stated that a wife's earning capacity cannot be merely presumed at the stage of granting interim maintenance. The court emphasized that the husband must provide concrete documentary evidence to support any claim that his wife is employed and earning.
The Core of the Legal Dispute
The case came before the court when a husband contested an interim maintenance order. He argued that his wife, the petitioner, was gainfully employed as a nursery teacher and therefore had her own source of income. Based on this assertion, he sought a reduction or dismissal of the interim maintenance he was directed to pay.
However, the bench scrutinizing the case noted a critical flaw in the husband's argument. He failed to place any documentary evidence on record to substantiate his claim that his wife was working and earning. The court found that his submission was based on assumption rather than verified proof.
The Court's Rationale and Ruling
The Delhi High Court underscored a fundamental principle of legal procedure: claims must be backed by evidence. At the interim stage, where the primary goal is to ensure the wife's immediate financial survival and parity during the pendency of litigation, the court cannot operate on presumptions about her income.
The judgment highlighted that placing the burden on the wife to disprove an unsubstantiated claim of employment would be unjust. The obligation rests squarely on the party making the assertion—in this instance, the husband—to prove it with documents such as appointment letters, salary slips, or bank statements. In the absence of such proof, the court cannot presume she is earning.
Implications for Matrimonial Law
This ruling, delivered on 08 January 2026, reinforces the protective intent behind laws governing interim maintenance. It serves as a crucial precedent for similar cases across the country, reminding litigants and lawyers alike of the evidentiary standards required in court.
The decision safeguards against potential misuse where unverified claims might be made to avoid financial responsibility. It ensures that interim maintenance orders, which are often urgent and essential for sustenance, are decided based on factual records rather than speculative arguments. This upholds the right to a dignified life for the spouse seeking support during protracted legal battles.
Legal experts believe this judgment will bring greater clarity to maintenance proceedings, stressing that "no presumption of income" can be drawn without solid backing, thereby strengthening the procedural fairness in family law matters.
