The Delhi High Court raised concerns about husbands hiding income during divorce cases to avoid financial responsibilities. Justice Ravinder Dudeja delivered a judgment on July 31 that brought this issue into focus while ruling on a petition by Nidhi Jain.
Nidhi Jain challenged a family court decision in Dwarka on June 7, 2024. The court had refused to let her summon witnesses. She argued that these witnesses could show her husband, Ankit Jain, concealed assets and money. She said funds from a Noida property sale moved through transfers and later helped Ankit buy a property in Shakti Nagar. According to her, this plan aimed to hide his true financial position.
Justice Dudeja stressed that courts must handle financial disputes in marriages with care and fairness. He said refusing Nidhi the chance to present evidence would defeat the purpose of a maintenance case. He directed the family court to allow her to call witnesses, noting that the documents and testimony played a key role in deciding the matter.
Nidhi also alleged domestic violence. She said her marriage began in February 2012 but turned abusive due to dowry demands. In November 2012, Ankit’s family locked her out of their home, seized her jewelry and money, and left her without support. She also accused Ankit of pretending to be poor by transferring assets to relatives to mislead the court about his finances.
Ankit’s counsel opposed her request. They claimed the witnesses were irrelevant and argued that Nidhi wanted to delay the case. The High Court rejected this view. It ruled that the family court’s reasoning was insufficient and said every litigant deserves a fair chance to prove their claims.
This case reflects wider problems in India, where domestic violence and financial disputes in marriages remain widespread. In 2012, Punjab reported more than 7,000 cases of domestic violence, many tied to dowry demands. Such disputes highlight the urgent need for financial transparency and fairness in marriages.
The High Court’s ruling underscored the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability. As the case returns to the family court, the outcome could shape how similar disputes move forward. The decision makes clear that justice in matrimonial cases depends on both sensitivity and a strong commitment to truth.
