To avoid paying alimony and child support, man claimed he was unemployed. Then, his wife filed an RTI

The petitioner woman approached the High Court in 2023 against the Rs 12-lakh one-time alimony awarded to her by a family court.

According to the petitioner, within a couple of years of marriage, she allegedly faced cruelty and domestic abuse, along with demands for dowry, including cash and an SUV. In 2012, the couple had a son, who was later diagnosed with autism. She alleged that her husband cut off communication and refused to support her or the child.

In 2014, the woman lodged an online complaint with the National Commission for Women, citing domestic violence and abandonment. Despite an attempt at reconciliation in 2015 at a Bhopal police station, no resolution was reached.

Advocate Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the petitioner’s counsel, told The Indian Express that in 2016, she had approached the family court in Ranchi, seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. “After this, the court had granted a one-time alimony of Rs 12 lakh and Rs 8,000 a month for the son’s maintenance,” he said.

Dissatisfied with the amount, especially in light of her son’s special needs and therapy expenses, she appealed in the Jharkhand High Court.

While the husband had claimed during family court proceedings that he was unemployed, the appellant produced an RTI response from the Income Tax Department showing that he was employed with an IT company in Mumbai and earned a gross annual income of Rs 27 lakh in FY 2022–23 (approximately Rs 2.3 lakh per month after deductions).

“Despite the husband’s false affidavit claiming no income, the RTI reply showed he was earning Rs 2.31 lakh per month. Based on this, we moved the High Court, which modified the earlier district court order and granted a total monthly maintenance of Rs 90,000 — Rs 50,000 to the wife and Rs 40,000 to the autistic child,” the advocate said.

The High Court took this on record and expressed concern that the family court had accepted the husband’s claim that he was unemployed without further verification. The High Court also observed that while the wife was a guest teacher in Ranchi, this could not be seen as regular employment, especially given her full-time caregiving duties for a child with autism.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar noted that the minor child, who has 75% intellectual disability, requires long-term specialised care and medical attention. The court took serious note of the father’s alleged failure to take active interest in the child’s welfare and remarked that “desertion of wife is one thing, but desertion of an autistic child is not only a moral failure but a legal default”.

The court also considered the estimated cost of around Rs 53,000 per month, submitted by the petitioner, which includes a child requiring continuous occupational and speech therapy, special schooling, and a structured diet and medical care.

Gupta called the High Court’s order a milestone. “This case is not just about alimony. It’s about acknowledging the long-term and unique challenges a single mother faces while raising a child with autism… It’s a socially important ruling,” he said.