The Allahabad High Court has imposed a compensatory cost of Rs.15 lakhs on a practicing advocate who filed false affidavits claiming unemployment while simultaneously pursuing a maintenance application against his wife, a government employee at the High Court, whose salary he had systematically drained through two coerced loans exceeding Rs.25 lakhs. Justice Vinod Diwakar's order is a rare and pointed judicial rebuke of economic abuse within marriage, treating financial exploitation by a spouse not as a domestic dispute but as a legally cognizable harm demanding corrective remedy.
The husband had approached the High Court seeking expedited hearing of his maintenance claim before the Trial Court, presenting himself as unemployed and entirely dependent on his wife's income, alleging marital cruelty and claiming subsistence on borrowings from friends and family. The reality, as the court uncovered layer by layer, was starkly different, he was enrolled with the UP Bar Council, attached to a lawyer's chamber, involved in construction, and came from a politically influential family with a Gram Pradhan mother and an MP uncle.
More damaging still, the wife's counsel placed on record that the husband had compelled her to take two separate loans totalling over Rs.25 lakhs, transferred the entire amount to himself, absconded with her jewellery and a car purchased from her own funds, and that she continued to repay the loans from her monthly salary. A Court-appointed amicus further flagged that the petitioner had a pattern of misleading courts across multiple proceedings through false affidavits, a finding the court confirmed after scrutinising his income tax returns, salary records, and filings across different forums.
Justice Diwakar's reasoning moved well beyond procedural misconduct. After personally interacting with both parties and observing the wife's demeanour, which the court recorded as bearing visible signs of mental and physical abuse, the bench delivered a sharp articulation of economic abuse as a form of marital harm that law can no longer treat as invisible. The Court observed that "economic abuse within marriage operates in insidious ways, through control over income, coercive appropriation of assets, and the gradual erosion of financial independence," and held that limiting remedies to direct financial loss fundamentally fails to capture the full extent of the injustice suffered.
The Court was equally unsparing about the petitioner's litigation conduct, noting that the High Court is not a "window shopping forum" and that suppressing material facts while seeking equitable relief disentitles a litigant from any judicial indulgence. Finding the petition wholly lacking in bona fides and undeserving of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the court dismissed it and directed the husband to pay ₹15 lakhs to the wife by demand draft within six weeks.
Picture Source :