"No man is ever as anti-feminist as a really feminine woman": A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli noted that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income of parties in matrimonial disputes: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that income tax returns (ITR) do not reflect the actual income of a party and cannot be an accurate guide to determine the income of parties in matrimonial cases [Kiran Tomar and ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh].
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli noted that during matrimonial disputes, parties tend to underestimate incomes and, therefore, family courts have to carry out a holistic assessment to determine the real income.
"It is well-settled that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together," the Court said.
A family court had in March this year ordered a husband, the second respondent in the instant case, to pay ₹20,000 per month to his wife and ₹15,000 each to their daughters as maintenance.
The sum was based on a finding that his monthly income was ₹2 lakh.
On a revision petition filed by the husband, the Allahabad High Court noted that his monthly income as per his ITR was ₹37,500.
It, therefore, held that the family court had not indicated how it arrived at the sum of ₹2 lakh per month and set aside that ruling.
This verdict of the High Court came to be assailed before the Supreme Court.
The top court said that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the family court.
It opined that the High Court did not appreciate the reasons that weighed with the family court, which included the fact that the husband had, in his ITR, not included the income from the business he was running with his father.
The High Court ought to have been aware of the parameters of its revisional jurisdiction, the Supreme Court said.
It added that the children's needs have to be duly met.
The bench also noted that the husband had failed to comply with an earlier interim order passed by it in which the top court had directed him to pay the arrears of maintenance.
"Ordinarily, we would have been inclined to pass a coercive order against the second respondent, but, in order to furnish a further opportunity to him to comply, we are passing a conditional order," the Court said.
The Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration but made it clear that arrears have to be paid by the end of this year, failing which the husband's revision plea before the High Court will stand dismissed.
Further, regular maintenance will also have to be paid during the course of proceedings before the High Court, the bench directed.
Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash Mehrotra appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate Priya Hingorani appeared for the husband.
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
Please share the article on other platforms
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
Related Articles
- "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please": SC grants bail to life convict Farooq who pelted stone at burning Godhra Train in 2002 & prevented Hindus inside train from escaping from fire, CJI Chandrachud ~ "It has been 17 long years"
- ‘HRCE Department is bound to protect temple properties and their belongings’: Madras HC lashes out at Tamil Nadu govt, orders to initiate proceedings to recover the encroached temple land, warns strong action
- In a case regarding child custody of 11-year-old Kanak, Court orders minor girl to be sent to Nari Niketan: Rajasthan
- "Man versus dog: in this round of alimony Olympics, Fido takes the gold!": In an unprecedented ruling, Mumbai's court insists that man's best friend requires maintenance too, husband now legally obliged to pay estranged wife's canine companions' upkeep
- Writ petition of Irfan scrapped by Allahabad High Court of seeking permission for Azaan on loudspeakers in the mosque, says ‘not a fundamental right’: Read details of the case
- "To no one we shall sell, to no one we shall deny or defer right or justice": Delhi High Court refuses to entertain Sameer Wankhede plea seeking protection in the disproportionate assets case, came to limelight as NCB questioned celebrities in drugs case
- "In this hellhole of hatelusters, what's needed is a hatebuster": Rampur Court sentences Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan to 3-year imprisonment for hate speech against UP CM Yogi Adityanath in 2019 and trying to incite violence between two communities
- SC bench of Justices Chandrachud and AS Bopanna rules in favor of Muslim petitioner: “Don’t exclude non-Hindus from auction process for shop leases in temple”
- Controversial Marxist leader Brinda Karat reaches Jahangirpuri to implement Supreme Court order, fanatic Leftist journos outrage over order not being followed immediately and took to Twitter to attack NDMC officials
- “Man cannot be freed by the same injustice that enslaved it”: Supreme Court stays Uttarakhand High Court order on Haldwani eviction, and disapproved the manner in which eviction was sought to be carried out by the Indian Railways, urges rehabilitation