Uncategorized

When men face maintenance proceedings, one of the first ideas that crosses their mind is to transfer their business, assets or financial holdings in the names of their parents to create an impression of poverty. On the surface, this appears to be a smart strategy—after all, if nothing is in your name, how will the court decide maintenance?

But the reality is exactly the opposite. Courts today are extremely alert to such tactics, and the law of maintenance is designed in a way that even if you transfer everything before the litigation starts, it will not reduce your maintenance liability. Instead, it may actually increase it, because courts rely heavily on the concept of notional income/guess work—a judicially assumed income based on your qualifications, lifestyle, experience, and conduct, regardless of the assets you formally hold.

The Delhi High Court’s detailed judgment in Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar dated 29.10.2025 is a perfect example of how courts view income suppression.

In that case, the husband showed a monthly expenditure of merely ₹3,000, even though he was maintaining himself, his mother, and a child from a previous marriage. The Court called this figure entirely unrealistic and observed that “this simply does not appeal to common sense. It appears that the respondent is trying to avoid his responsibilities” . This is exactly how courts treat sudden declarations of unemployment or attempts to show artificially low income. No matter what paperwork you create, the court evaluates what is believable in real life.

The Court further noted substantial credit transactions—over ₹15 lakh in two and a half years—despite the husband’s claim that he had been unemployed since 2019. The judgment specifically states that “it is questionable as to how there were credit entries… in case he was unemployed” . This is crucial because even if you transfer your business to your parents, your bank statement, lifestyle, and financial behaviour will reveal the truth. Courts draw adverse inferences whenever financial disclosure is incomplete or suspicious.

The High Court explicitly held that where a husband conceals income or fails to produce complete bank records, it is legitimate for the court to conclude that he is “a man of means and has sufficient capacity to maintain the respondent” .

The judgment goes a step further by explaining how maintenance must be determined through an assessment of actual or notional income. The Court makes it clear that “in many cases, husbands either fail to disclose their true income…

In such circumstances, the Family Courts must make a reasonable assessment of the husband’s notional income, taking into account his educational qualifications, professional background, past employment, lifestyle, bank transactions and other material” .

This is the law across India now. Even if your business is suddenly shown in your father’s name or your property is transferred to your mother, the court will still look at your degree, your experience, your skills, your social media, your past earning history and conclude that you should be earning a particular amount. That “should be earning” figure becomes your notional income.

The judgment also warns Family Courts against blindly applying minimum wages when the husband is skilled or has a strong professional background. Minimum wages are only a basic indicator, and even then, they must be applied carefully based on the correct state, skill category, and relevant period.

The Court emphasised that minimum wages are a floor, not a ceiling, meaning that if your past record shows that you can earn far more, the court will fix your income higher, not lower . This makes it impossible to escape liability by artificially reducing your income or by shifting your business to another family member.

In essence, the courts today care about capability, not just documentation.

Even if your assets are legally held by your parents, the court will see whether those assets and businesses were actually operated by you. If your father is retired or your mother has no experience in your line of business, the courts will instantly infer that you are the real operator behind the scenes. And once that conclusion is drawn, transferring ownership becomes counterproductive, because it signals deliberate suppression of income.

This leads to higher notional income, stricter inquiry under Section 94 BNS (formerly Section 91 CrPC), heavier maintenance, and sometimes even perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.

Therefore, transferring assets or businesses to parents is not a protection—it is an invitation for the court to assume a higher income and impose a higher maintenance burden. The smarter approach is not to hide income but to build a credible, consistent financial record, highlight the earning capacity of the wife when applicable, and focus on proportional responsibility based on real evidence. Courts reward honesty and consistency. They penalise manipulation. And the judgment you uploaded is a clear warning that today’s judiciary is fully equipped to identify income-hiding tactics and neutralize them through the doctrine of notional income.

---