The Delhi High Court recently upheld a family court’s decision to examine the husband’s Income Tax Returns from the past two years to evaluate his capacity to pay maintenance. The husband, a practicing advocate, had reported a “significant decline” in income after the breakdown of the marriage.
Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that, without a reasonable justification, this decrease appeared to be a deliberate attempt to underreport his financial ability.
“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 awarding interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month to his wife and child.
The husband asserted that his monthly income was only around ₹14,000 and argued that his wife, a B.Com graduate, was fully capable of earning on her own.
The wife, on the other hand, claimed that the husband and his family are wealthy, possessing multiple residential and commercial properties. She further argued that the ₹3,25,780 income from house property reported in the 2018-19 Income Tax Return had been deliberately reduced after their marital breakdown to avoid his maintenance obligations.
Upon examining the available 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.”
Concerning the wife’s ability to earn, the Court noted that she is a B.Com graduate who is presently pursuing her Chartered Accountancy qualification and, significantly, is responsible for the care of their minor child, aged just five years. In such circumstances, expecting her to secure immediate employment is neither realistic nor justified.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the husband’s plea.
