Software engineer's salary dropped from Rs 5.5 lakh to Rs 20,000? Bombay HC calls it ‘unbelievable’, fines him Rs 1 lakh for not paying wife, kid maintenance

MUMBAI: Bombay high court imposed a Rs 1 lakh cost on a man who made a "systematic attempt" to ensure that any order to pay maintenance to his wife and minor daughter could not be executed. The amount is to be paid to the wife within four weeks.
"It is unbelievable that the petitioner, who is a software engineer working as a ‘software developer' and was getting Rs 65 lakh per annum, ie, a salary of Rs 5.5 lakh per month, is now getting a salary of Rs 20,000 per month," said Justice Madhav Jamdar on March 19.

The couple married in April 2016. The husband filed for divorce in Sept 2020 before the civil judge senior division (CJSD).
In Sept 2022, CJSD directed him to pay Rs 30,000 maintenance to his wife and daughter and the EMI of the flat. In May 2024, CJSD refused to recall his order.
Before HC, his advocate Naina Sharma argued that he got a job with effect from Aug 2, 2021, on Rs 65 lakh annual compensation.
He met with an accident four days after joining, was on two months' medical leave, and resumed service in Oct 2021. Due to his accident, he could not work, and he resigned in Feb 2022. He took up a job paying Rs 20,000 monthly rendering it exceedingly difficult for him to comply with maintenance and EMI payment obligations.
Agreeing with the wife's advocate Amol Jagtap, Justice Jamdar said in the husband's review petition there was no mention of his accident or in his petition filed in Aug 2024 in HC. It was mentioned for the first time in his Feb 12 reply to the wife's contempt petition before CJSD. His reason for resigning the earlier job "is totally different" and not due to the alleged accident.
Justice Jamdar said till Nov 2023, the husband represented, even after his alleged accident and resignation of the job due to it, on a matrimonial site that he earns Rs 35-50 lakh annually. Between Feb 2021 and Jan 2022, he transferred Rs 34 lakh to his mother and brother. "Thus, it is clear that a systematic attempt is made by the petitioner to ensure that even if any order is passed by the court granting maintenance, it will be impossible for the wife to execute the same. It is significant to note that the petitioner-husband is not even ready to pay maintenance to the daughter who is presently eight years old," he added.
Justice Jamdar said the petitioner has approached high court with "unclean hands and with a totally false case". Dismissing the petition, he said there is substance in the wife's contention that even assuming the accident happened, "the petitioner's work has not been affected due to the accident".