Title: 12-year maintenance case, income contradiction via RTI — need legal insight
Hi, I’m looking for informed legal views on a maintenance matter that has been ongoing for years.
Timeline (brief):
- Matrimonial dispute started around 2014
- Opposite party refused lump sum settlement, so litigation continued
- Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC
- Interim set at ₹30,000, with multiple irregular payments → recovery of arrears had to be initiated
- Order passed on 03.01.2026 (currently under revision before higher court):
- Directed ₹50,000/month maintenance
- 1/3rd of salary (~₹80,000) towards arrears
- Directed ₹50,000/month maintenance
👉 Reality after order:
- The ₹80,000 (recovery part) is being paid
- But the ₹50,000 maintenance itself is still not being paid properly
This makes it feel like even after a court order, compliance is being selectively followed.
Additional context:
- Opposite party is a Deputy General Manager-level employee
- Continues to claim low income / inability to pay before the court
However, through RTI, I obtained official records showing:
- Income of approximately ₹4 lakh/month
Key Issue:
The opposite party has consistently claimed inability to pay / low income in court.
However, I obtained information through RTI, which indicates financial capacity/income that was not disclosed in the proceedings.
So there is a direct contradiction between:
- Statements made before the court vs
- Official financial information obtained via RTI
Concerns:
- If maintenance was decided based on incorrect or incomplete income disclosure, is that enough to challenge the validity of the order?
- How seriously do courts treat suppression or misrepresentation of income in maintenance cases?
- Since the matter is already in revision, can this RTI evidence be relied upon effectively at this stage?
- How can I ensure the court clearly sees that the revisionist/opposite party is concealing material facts, especially when I have already submitted RTI documents showing substantial income?
Why this feels concerning:
- Case has dragged for over a decade
- Interim orders required enforcement for arrears
- Final order still not fully complied with
- And now there is documented income contradiction
Goal:
Not looking for emotional opinions — specifically want to understand:
- Legal strength of this contradiction
- Practical approach courts take in such situations
- Best way this evidence is typically used
Any insights from lawyers or those experienced in similar cases would be helpful.