Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

X v. State of Assam & Anr., 2026

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC — Burden of Proof, Income Assessment, and Adjustment of DV Act Maintenance

Gauhati High Court·18 May 2026

Court

Gauhati High Court

Date of Decision

18 May 2026

Judges

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Facts of the Case

The respondent-wife filed a petition seeking maintenance for herself and her minor child, alleging neglect and expulsion from the matrimonial home.
She claimed that the husband was engaged in a medicine business and earned approximately ₹1,50,000 per month.
The husband denied the allegations and stated that he worked as a private pharmacist, earning around ₹400 per day (₹12,000–₹15,000 per month).
He further claimed that the wife left the matrimonial home on her own and refused to return despite efforts made by him.
The Magistrate, relying on the wife’s assertions and adverse inference, held that the husband failed to prove his income and was concealing evidence.
The Magistrate awarded ₹12,000 per month to the wife and ₹8,000 per month to the child under Section 125 CrPC.
The husband challenged only the quantum of maintenance before the High Court.
The wife did not produce documentary evidence supporting her claim of high income.

Whether the Magistrate was justified in drawing adverse inference against the husband for not producing employment documents and concluding higher income?
Whether shifting the burden of proof upon the husband to establish exact income in maintenance proceedings was arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction?
Whether maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be determined without cogent evidence of income and based on conjecture?
Whether maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must be adjusted while granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

The Court held that mere failure to produce employment documents does not automatically discredit the husband’s declared income affidavit/statement of assets and liabilities.
It observed that in cases of informal employment, documentary proof may not always exist.
The Court ruled that shifting the burden of proof on the husband to prove non-existence of high income was arbitrary.
The Magistrate acted beyond jurisdiction in fixing income at ₹75,000 per month without evidence.
The wife failed to prove the alleged high income of ₹1,50,000 per month.
The Court accepted the husband’s declared income of ₹12,000–₹15,000 per month as credible.
It held that maintenance already awarded under the DV Act must be adjusted against maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The Court reduced total maintenance to ₹6,000 per month (₹2,000 for child), which stood fully adjusted, resulting in nil liability.

The Magistrate erred in imputing higher income without evidence on record.
The burden of proof cannot be arbitrarily shifted in maintenance proceedings.
Maintenance must be based on evidence, not assumptions or conjecture.
DV Act maintenance must be adjusted against Section 125 CrPC maintenance.
Final payable maintenance reduced to ₹6,000 per month, fully adjusted.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that maintenance proceedings must be fair and evidence-based, despite their summary nature.
It clarified that adverse inference cannot replace substantive proof of income.
The judgment discourages speculative income assessment in absence of reliable material evidence.
It protects litigants engaged in informal employment from unrealistic income assumptions.
The Court emphasized judicial restraint in determining financial capacity in maintenance disputes.
It reinforced the principle of adjustment of overlapping maintenance orders under different statutes.
The decision balances the welfare objective of maintenance law with protection against arbitrary financial burden.