The Supreme Court said the quiet part out loud in Rajnesh v. Neha. It recorded that both parties tend to submit scanty material and suppress vital information, that there is a tendency on the part of the wife to exaggerate her needs and a corresponding tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income, and that a procedure had become necessary to stop that. Everything below comes from what the Court then directed.
The affidavit is the lever, and it asks for more than people expect
The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, annexed to the judgment as Enclosures I, II and III, has to be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including proceedings that were already pending, throughout the country. The judgment exempts parties belonging to economically weaker sections, those below the poverty line and casual labourers from filing this affidavit. Its Part F alone requires income tax returns for one year before the marriage, one year before the separation, and the year the maintenance application is filed, bank statements for all accounts for the last three years, and for a private-sector employee a certificate from the employer stating designation and gross monthly income together with Form 16. Part I deals separately with self-employed persons, professionals and business owners, and asks for the share in the partnership, the last audited balance sheet of the company, and the firm's income tax filings.
The tools for going behind the affidavit
| Tool | What it does | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Interrogatories and production of documents | Written questions he must answer on oath, and specific documents he must produce | Order XI CPC, with the court's permission, expressly endorsed in Rajnesh |
| Examination of the party | The court questions him directly on his own affidavit | Order X CPC |
| The judge's own power to ask | The judge may ask any question in any form at any time of any party, and order production of any document or thing | Section 168, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the old Section 165 Evidence Act |
| Burden of proof | Where a fact is especially within a person's knowledge, the burden of proving it is on him | Section 109, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the old Section 106 |
| Third-party records | Summons to the employer, the bank, the registrar of companies or the GST authority to produce records | Order XVI CPC and the Family Court's own procedure under Section 10(3), Family Courts Act, 1984 |
| False statements on affidavit | A complaint by the court for the offence of false evidence, plus contempt | Section 379 BNSS, the old Section 340 CrPC, as Rajnesh directed |
Lifestyle evidence, which is what usually wins
Concealed income is rarely proved directly. It is proved by the gap between what he says he earns and what he plainly spends. Gather the second set and the first collapses.
- The rent agreement for the home he lives in, and the rent actually paid
- School or college fee receipts for the children, and any fees he pays for anyone else
- Credit card statements, which he must disclose in the affidavit, and the pattern of spending in them
- Vehicle registration certificates and any loan or insurance on them
- Foreign travel, provable from passport stamps, visas and booking confirmations
- Property tax receipts and the encumbrance certificate for property in his name or in a family member's name funded by him
- For a business, the GST returns, the shop or godown lease, staff numbers and the audited accounts of the firm, which say far more than his declared drawings
- Company filings, if he is a director or a partner, which are public documents anyone can obtain
On the RTI route, be realistic. An application to a government or public-sector employer for a spouse's salary particulars is sometimes allowed and is frequently refused as personal information, and the answer varies with the authority. It is worth trying because it is cheap, but do not build the case on it. The guide on getting a husband's salary details sets out where that route has worked and where a court direction is the only realistic path, and the guide on tracing concealed money and property deals with the harder cases.
Where these applications go wrong
The plea that reads "the respondent earns lakhs in cash but shows nothing" and stops there is the commonest failure in this jurisdiction. It is an assertion, the court has nothing to act on, and the interim figure gets fixed low on the material available. The version that works pleads a specific number, states how it is arrived at, and annexes the documents that support the arithmetic. Even a rough but reasoned figure, built from rent plus school fees plus the car plus the observed household spend, gives the court something concrete to compare against his affidavit.
Remember also that a court is not confined to declared earnings. Rajnesh recorded that a husband's plea of having no source of income does not by itself absolve him if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. So even where the concealment cannot be proved, an established qualification and a work history are enough for the court to fix maintenance on what he is capable of earning. Before you gather anything by recording him or accessing his accounts, read what is and is not admissible in a family court, because evidence obtained the wrong way costs more than it gains.