ITRs not conclusive proof of actual income, particularly in matrimonial disputes where earnings may be understated

This case from the Family Court highlights the difficult balancing act of determining fair maintenance during a matrimonial dispute. The husband recently challenged an order directing him to pay Rs. 50,000 per month to his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC a figure that has become a major point of contention. The husband contended that his financial condition had materially worsened after 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused heavy business losses and reduced his income, making the Rs. 50,000 monthly maintenance unsustainable.

He relied on Income Tax Returns and witness evidence to support his claim and argued that he had not neglected his wife, as he had been bearing household and children’s educational expenses. In contrast, the wife asserted that the maintenance claim was essential for her survival, particularly due to her ongoing cancer treatment and high medical costs. She accused the husband of concealing his true income, pointing to his foreign travel and lifestyle as inconsistent with his claimed earnings, and relied on financial records to demonstrate that he had sufficient means to pay the maintenance.

Issue Before Court: Whether the Family Court’s order granting Rs. 50,000 monthly maintenance was excessive and liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

HC’s Decision: The High Court unequivocally upheld the Rs. 50,000 monthly maintenance awarded to the wife, dismissing the husband’s appeal and reinforcing the principle that a husband’s obligation to maintain his spouse cannot be diluted by claims of financial distress or reliance on technical documentation. The Court found no perversity or legal infirmity in the Family Court’s order and emphasised that income tax returns are not conclusive proof of actual income, particularly in matrimonial disputes where earnings may be understated. Instead, it assessed the husband’s overall financial capacity, including his lifestyle and assets. The husband’s argument that the wife was educated and capable of earning was rejected, with the court clarifying that mere earning capacity does not equate to actual employment, especially in circumstances where the wife is suffering from a serious medical condition.

The judgement further underscored that an able-bodied man carries both a legal and moral duty to support his wife and cannot evade this responsibility by citing business losses or economic downturns. Importantly, the Court highlighted that maintenance is not limited to subsistence but is intended to ensure that the wife can maintain a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. The wife’s cancer diagnosis played a critical role in the Court’s reasoning, as it necessitated ongoing and substantial medical expenditure, making financial support indispensable. In this context, the amount of Rs. 50,000 was held to be reasonable and proportionate to the husband’s apparent means and the wife’s needs. The ruling ultimately reinforces that maintenance is a substantive right, and courts will not permit procedural or financial justifications to deprive a dependent spouse particularly one facing a health crisis of adequate support.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.