Mumbai: Observing that children of a father earning Rs 3 crore annually must not become “financial collateral damage” in a marital dispute, the sessions court upheld a Rs 4 lakh monthly interim maintenance order against a 45-year-old wealth management company’s senior vice president.Dismissing the executive’s appeal, the court pointed to his attempt to conceal his true income. While the father filed an affidavit claiming he earned just Rs one lakh per month as a standard “wealth manager,” the pay slips he submitted contradicted him, proving his senior VP status and a multi-lakh monthly salary. Noting this deliberate suppression of material facts, the judge confirmed the Rs 4 lakh payout to ensure his estranged wife and five-year-old twin daughters are protected from “economic deprivation and social humiliation”.Rejecting the argument that the wife’s purported monthly income of Rs 3.5 lakh disentitled her and their daughters from interim maintenance, the court said the family’s standard of living before separation was relevant. The court also accepted that the wife was maintaining the twin daughters and that the father had the financial capacity to contribute substantially.“Their standard of living when they were residing with their parents happily has to be kept in mind while considering their needs, their requirements on the verge of their age as they are taking education and they are also having equal rights to get good, quality education when their parents are wealthy persons and they should not be deprived of their rights, and in a nutshell, they should not be the victims of matrimonial dispute between their parents,” the judge said.The couple married on May 30, 2013, and had twin daughters during the marriage. According to the wife, the relationship deteriorated due to harassment and cruelty, and she began living separately in 2021. The wife claimed that the husband failed to make provision for the maintenance of the children and her, did not provide financial support for day-to-day needs, and neglected educational and other expenses of the daughters.The wife approached the magistrate’s court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking interim monetary relief in 2022. The wife claimed that the husband had substantial income and earned crores annually, while the expenses for the children and her, including education, housing, food, medical needs and general living costs, were high. The wife also claimed that the husband had concealed true income and assets.The husband opposed the plea, denying the allegations of domestic violence and claiming that the wife had left without justification. The husband contended that the wife was financially independent and earning around Rs 3 lakh to Rs 3.5 lakh per month. The husband also claimed that his own income was about Rs 3 lakh to Rs 3.5 lakh per month and argued that the maintenance fixed by the trial court was excessive and disproportionate.The magistrate’s court passed an interim order on Feb 21, 2026, directing the husband to pay Rs 4 lakh per month to the wife and daughters, along with costs of Rs 10,000. The husband challenged that order before the sessions court, arguing that the trial court had wrongly relied on income-tax returns showing gross annual income of about Rs 3 crore, without properly considering statutory deductions, tax, provident fund, gratuity, loan liabilities and family responsibilities.The husband also argued that incentive-linked amounts and perquisites had been wrongly treated as fixed income. The husband claimed that the wife’s monthly expenses were exaggerated and that there was no sufficient documentary proof for the education, medical and housing expenses claimed for the daughters.The wife opposed the appeal and submitted that the husband’s versions regarding income had changed from time to time. The wife relied on income-tax documents showing gross annual income of about Rs 3 crore for the assessment year 2024-25. The wife also pointed to salary records and submitted that the husband was employed in a senior position and had suppressed material facts about income and status.The court noted that there was no dispute about the marriage, the birth of the two daughters, and the fact that the parties had been living separately since 2021. The court also considered the wife’s claim that the husband had an illicit relationship and that the wife had suffered mental trauma and humiliation.On the question of domestic violence, the court held that the material on record showed a prima facie basis for relief. “…the contentions of both the sides and the facts discussed by the…trial court particularly demonstrate, and there is a reason to believe that there are instances of the domestic violence between the parties,” the court observed.The court further noted that the husband’s own documents showed a fixed gross annual salary of Rs 51.75 lakh for 2024-25, while income-tax returns reflected annual income of about Rs 3 crore. The court said this indicated that the husband earned amounts beyond fixed salary.“There is nothing to disbelieve or discard the income which is considered by the learned trial court of the appellant, resulting that granting of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs 4,00,000 per month as directed by the learned trial court is not exorbitant, but it is rightly granted considering the status and livelihood and standard of living of both the sides and more particularly, the appellant husband has the financial capacity and potential to bear the same,” the court observed.“There is nothing to disbelieve or discard the income which is considered by the learned trial court of the appellant resulting that granting of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,00.000/- per month as directed by the learned trial court is not exorbitant, but it is rightly granted considering the status and livelihood and standard of living of both the sides and more particularly, the appellant husband has the financial capacity and potential to bear the same,” the court observed.
