The Delhi High Court recently stated that it was a common practice in matrimonial cases for husbands to suppress or conceal their real income to avoid paying their wives their legitimate dues. “It is not uncommon that when there are matrimonial differences between the husband and wife, many times husbands tend to suppress their real income and resort to transferring their assets to avoid payment of legitimate dues to their wives,” said Justice Ravinder Dudeja in a judgment dated July 31, which was recently made public.These observations were made while hearing a petition filed by Nidhi Jain against an order dated June 7, 2024, passed by a family court in Dwarka where her applications for summoning witnesses to prove her husband Ankit Jain’s concealment of assets were dismissed.“By seeking to summon the statements of accounts of family members of the respondent, the petitioner intends to bring on record the chain of diversion of funds from the sale of Noida property to establish that the said funds were used for the purchase of Shakti Nagar property by the respondent. Denying the petitioner an opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of maintenance proceedings,” the Justice said.“Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic approach. The documents and witnesses sought to be introduced by the petitioner are not collateral or immaterial, but rather, they directly affect the determination of maintenance, which is a matter of subsistence,” Justice Dudeja added, while setting aside the order and directing the family court to permit Nidhi to summon the witnesses.Nidhi had claimed before the court that after her marriage in February 2012, she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and his family to fulfill dowry demands. She also alleged that in November 2012, Ankit’s family locked the matrimonial home and transferred her jewellery and cash to their accounts, deserting her without resources.She also contended that her husband had misrepresented his financial situation throughout the trial, falsely portraying himself as having no significant income or assets.