Every contested maintenance case in Delhi now runs on sworn financial disclosure: both parties file detailed affidavits of assets, income and liabilities, and the interim order is largely built from them. That machinery works only if the affidavits are true — and a substantial share of maintenance litigation is, in reality, a contest about concealment. Husbands understate business income and park assets with relatives; claimants sometimes suppress their own earnings or qualifications. This explainer surveys what courts actually do when an affidavit turns out to be false or incomplete: adverse inference on quantum, costs, striking of defence, and in appropriate cases prosecution for perjury.
Why the affidavit carries so much weight
Interim maintenance is decided without trial, on affidavits and documents. The court cannot audit a business or trace benami holdings at that stage; it can only compare the sworn disclosure against objective markers — bank statements, income tax returns, rent, school fees, vehicles, travel. The affidavit is therefore not a formality but the evidentiary foundation of the order, and both the trial courts and the High Court of Delhi treat its accuracy as a matter going to the administration of justice, not merely to the parties' private contest.
The concealment playbook — and the judicial counter-moves
The escalation ladder
What honest litigants should do
The larger point
Maintenance jurisprudence has moved decisively toward disclosure-driven adjudication: standardised affidavits, both parties bound, lifestyle benchmarks in place of speculation. In that architecture, the false affidavit is not a tactic but a self-inflicted wound — it converts a quantum dispute the litigant might partly win into a credibility contest the litigant has already lost. The most valuable advice a maintenance litigant receives is often the least welcome: state the finances truthfully, and fight the case on the law and the arithmetic.
This article describes general practice in maintenance proceedings before Delhi courts. It is informational and not advice on any specific matter; disclosure formats and directions vary with the forum and the stage of the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must the affidavit of assets and liabilities disclose?
The standard format used in maintenance proceedings requires particulars of employment and income from every source, bank accounts, immovable and movable assets, investments, liabilities, dependants, lifestyle indicators such as vehicles and foreign travel, and educational and professional qualifications — for both parties, at the outset of the proceedings.
What is the consequence of concealing income in the affidavit?
The immediate consequence is adverse inference: the court assesses income against the visible standard of living and attributes a realistic figure, disbelieving the affidavit. Concealment also invites costs, and because the affidavit is a sworn statement filed in judicial proceedings, deliberate falsehood can ground prosecution for perjury-type offences on the court's complaint.
Can the defence of a non-disclosing party be struck off?
Persistent defiance of disclosure directions can lead to the defence being closed or the non-compliant party's right to contest being curtailed, and interim maintenance being fixed on the claimant's material alone. Courts prefer adverse inference on quantum, but obstruction of the disclosure process itself invites procedural sanctions.
Does a false affidavit affect the final maintenance determination?
Yes. Findings of concealment at the interim stage colour the court's assessment of that party's credibility throughout — including on the merits of cruelty or desertion allegations — and appellate courts are slow to disturb quantum fixed against a party found to have concealed.