Supreme Court has held that, “While ascertaining the real income, holistic assessment has to be done, especially in matrimonial disputes as the parties tend to underestimate the income”.
SC Bench further added that, “Income tax returns do not always provide accurate guide of the real income and so other evidences also have to be considered”.
Brief Facts
The case instituted by the Appellants under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was allowed by the Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court and the Respondent No. 2 was directed to pay maintenance amount to the Appellants. The HC of Allahabad had set aside this judgement of the Family Court. Hence, the present appeal was filed against the judgement of the HC of Allahabad.
Brief History
The Family Court while pronouncing the verdict observed that the Respondent No.2 had contended during the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 that he had good resources and he works as a contractor. He had also presented documentary evidence to prove his educational qualifications and the capability to raise children. Even though there was no disclosure with respect to the income, but it was admitted that he is in business with his father. It was also noted that he has a rental house and the rent was paid by his father. The Family Court had concluded that the Respondent No.2 had concealed his income from the business that he and his father are involved in. The Family Court also noted that the appellant was a partner in the company which allegedly belonged to her brother and she had Rs. 12,000 in her bank account. Since, the Appellant was not working on a post in the company and all of her and her children’s expenses were borne by her family, the Court had issued directions for maintenance.
The HC on the other hand noted that as opposed to what the Appellant contended that the Respondent No.2 earns Rs. 2 lakhs per month, the income tax returns indicated that he earns Rs. 4.5 lakhs per annum. It was observed by the HC that the Family Court did not provided basis on which it adjudged the income of the Respondent No.2 as Rs. 2 lakhs per month.
Observations and Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court Bench expounded that the reliability on income tax returns in ascertaining real income may not always be as accurate and particularly when the parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict. This is so, because in such disputes the parties underestimate the income. Therefore, the Family Court has to do a holistic assessment of the evidence to ascertain the real income so as to enable the Appellant to live in a condition which is equivalent to the states to which they were accustomed during the time of marriage.
The Court did not agree with findings of the HC and restored the matter to the HC for fresh consideration. SC Bench also passed directions for interim maintenance and directed the Respondent No.2 to continue to provide for maintenance as directed by the Family Court till the matter is heard again by the HC. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Cause Title: Kiran Tomar & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1865 of 2022
Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud , Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli
Decided on: October 31st, 2022
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
