Every maintenance case — under Section 144 BNSS, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or Section 20 of the DV Act — turns on a single disputed fact: what the other side actually earns. The claimant rarely holds the proof; the payer rarely volunteers it. The law’s answer is a layered disclosure machinery, and using it deliberately, from the first hearing, is what separates a realistic award from a token one.
Why disclosure is the whole game
Quantum in maintenance is a function of two variables: the needs of the claimant and the means of the payer. The first is easy to prove; the second is routinely concealed — salaries routed to family accounts, businesses run in a brother’s name, rental income left off affidavits. The disclosure machinery exists because cross-examination alone cannot reconstruct a balance sheet. Documents can.
The three layers of the machinery
Meeting the usual objections
“The ITR is confidential.” Confidentiality yields to relevance. The respondent’s income is not collateral material in a maintenance case; it is the fact in issue. Courts have consistently permitted summoning of tax records in matrimonial litigation, and the Family Courts Act expressly loosens formal evidence rules so that such material can be received and acted upon.
“The business is not mine.” Where income is routed through relatives, lifestyle evidence fills the gap: the car driven, the school fees paid, the residence maintained, foreign travel, credit card statements. A court assessing means is entitled to prefer the standard of living actually enjoyed over the poverty pleaded on affidavit.
“I am unemployed.” An able-bodied respondent is presumed capable of earning at least at the level of his qualifications and work history. Courts in Delhi routinely peg such respondents to minimum wage or to their last drawn salary rather than accepting zero.
The cost of concealment
A working checklist for the claimant’s side
Seek directions for affidavits of assets and income at the first effective hearing — not after pleadings close.
Serve a specific production list: ITRs with computation sheets for three years, Form 16/16A, GST returns, statements of all accounts named in the affidavit.
Apply for third-party summons to the employer and bankers where production is evasive; ask for records from the source, not copies from the party.
Assemble lifestyle evidence in parallel — vehicles, school fees, travel, rent actually paid — to test the affidavit’s credibility.
Where the affidavit is demonstrably false, seek consequences in terms: adverse inference on quantum and, in egregious cases, perjury action.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an affidavit of assets and income?
It is a sworn, structured disclosure of income, assets, liabilities and expenditure that both parties must file in maintenance proceedings. Because it is sworn, a false or incomplete affidavit is not mere litigation posturing — it exposes the deponent to perjury proceedings and to adverse findings on quantum.
Can the court summon the other side's ITRs and bank statements?
Yes. The court may direct a party to produce income tax returns, salary slips and bank statements, and may summon records directly from employers, banks and the income tax authorities. Privacy objections carry little weight because the documents go to the very issue the court must decide.
What happens if the respondent simply does not file?
Non-filing invites an adverse inference — the court may accept the claimant's estimate of income, fix maintenance on the standard of living disclosed by lifestyle evidence, and in appropriate cases strike off the defence of a party in persistent default of interim maintenance.
Does a self-employed respondent escape disclosure?
No. For self-employed respondents the court looks at GST filings, business bank accounts, loan applications — where income is often overstated — vehicle ownership and household expenditure. Courts also apply the principle that an able-bodied person is presumed capable of earning, so pleaded idleness does not cap maintenance.