The Delhi High Court recently affirmed the family court’s order to scrutinize the husband’s Income Tax Returns for the past two years to assess his ability to provide maintenance. The husband, who is a practicing advocate, had claimed a “substantial drop” in income following the breakdown of the marriage.
Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that, in the absence of a valid explanation, this decline seemed to be a deliberate effort to understate his financial capacity.
“In this Court‟s view, the learned Family Court has rightly observed that the ITR of the husband for the year 2018–19 reflected the husband’s total income as ₹10,17,803/-…However, in the ITR filed for 2020–21, soon after the separation between the parties, his income was reduced to ₹1,80,000/-… in such a factual matrix, it was appropriate to take the 2018–19 ITR as the basis for determining his disposable income.”
The bench was hearing a revision petition filed by the husband, who challenged the family court’s order directing him to pay interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month to his wife and child. The husband contended that his monthly income was only around ₹14,000 and argued that his wife, a B.Com graduate, was fully capable of supporting herself.
The wife, however, maintained that the husband and his family are affluent, owning multiple residential and commercial properties. She further contended that the ₹3,25,780 reported as income from house property in his 2018-19 Income Tax Return had been intentionally reduced after their marital breakdown to evade maintenance obligations.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court observed:
“the husband had transferred certain valuable properties in favour of his parents. Prima facie, such transfers, executed soon after the separation between the parties, appear to have been made with the object of shielding assets and thereby reducing his apparent financial capacity so as to avoid liability towards payment of maintenance.”
Regarding the wife’s earning capacity, the Court noted that she is a B.Com graduate currently pursuing her Chartered Accountancy qualification and, importantly, is responsible for caring for their minor child, who is only five years old. In these circumstances, expecting her to immediately secure employment is neither realistic nor justified.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the husband’s petition.
