Income tax returns became the deciding factor in a maintenance battle before the Allahabad High Court, which set aside a family court order granting Rs 8,000 per month to a wife, noting that documents on record showed she had reported annual income exceeding Rs 4.5 lakh.
Justice Achal Sachdev was hearing two connected criminal revision petitions arising from an order passed by the additional principal judge, family court, Etawah, on July 16, 2024.
“The award of maintenance in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 (wife) at the rate of Rs 8000 per month is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh determination of the quantum of maintenance payable to the wife, after proper appraisal of her income, assets, and liabilities in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v Neha,” the court said on May 29 remanding the issue of maintenance payable to the wife for fresh determination.
Justice Achal Sachdev noted that the wife had not denied filing the affidavit disclosing her income or the existence of the income tax returns. (Image enhanced using AI)
Court finds contradictory income claims
After examining the record, the high court noted that the wife had not denied filing the affidavit disclosing her income or the existence of the income tax returns relied upon by the husband.
Justice Sachdev observed that there was an apparent contradiction between the financial disclosures made before the family court and those made before the high court.
The court recorded that while the wife declared her income as nil before the family court, she had simultaneously disclosed annual earnings of approximately Rs 4.58 lakh in separate proceedings and filed the income tax .
“A perusal of the record clearly reveals that applicant no. 1 (the woman) made inconsistent statements regarding her income before the trial court, which stand in contradiction to the income disclosed in her affidavit filed before the High Court,” the judgment said.
The court further noted that documents including including that of income tax returns highlighting these inconsistencies had been produced by the husband but were neither discussed nor analysed in the family court‘s order.
The court said the trial judge failed to consider crucial financial evidence before passing the maintenance order.
Family court had awarded Rs 13,000 monthly maintenance
The dispute stemmed from a maintenance application filed by a woman on behalf of herself and her minor son against her husband.
The family court had directed the husband to pay Rs 8,000 per month to his wife and Rs 5,000 per month to their son from the date of filing of the maintenance application.
While the husband challenged the maintenance awarded to the wife, she separately approached the high court seeking enhancement of the amount granted by the family court.
Husband relied on wife’s income tax records
The husband’s principal argument before the high court was that his wife had obtained the maintenance order by concealing material facts regarding her income and income tax returns.
His counsel pointed to documents filed by the wife in separate habeas corpus proceedings before the high court, including income tax returns and a net-worth certificate prepared by chartered accountants.
According to those records, the wife had disclosed annual income of Rs 4,58,570 for the assessment year 2022-23 income tax returns.
A net-worth certificate placed before the court also reflected assessed income of Rs 4,81,310 for the same period.
The husband argued that despite these disclosures, the wife had filed an affidavit before the family court showing her income as nil and filed income tax returns while seeking maintenance.
He contended that the trial court ignored these documents including that of income tax returns and passed the maintenance order without examining whether she possessed sufficient independent means to support herself.
The husband also claimed that he earned around Rs 30,000 per month from a restaurant business operating from premises owned by his father.
Rajnesh v Neha guidelines highlighted
The high court referred to the Supreme Court‘s ruling in Rajnesh vs Neha (2021), which made it mandatory for parties in maintenance proceedings to file truthful affidavits disclosing their income, assets and liabilities.
“The award of maintenance in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 (the estranged wife) requires reconsideration in light of her admitted income and the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha,” the court said.
The judgment emphasised that these disclosures are intended to prevent concealment of income, inflated claims and speculative litigation.
The court observed that suppression of material facts or furnishing false information undermines the purpose of the disclosure mechanism and can attract adverse legal consequences, including proceedings for perjury.
“The affidavit is not a mere formality; it is the foundation for determining fair maintenance,” the court said.
Wife not automatically disqualified
Even while finding fault with the family court‘s approach, the high court clarified that the mere existence of an income does not automatically disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance.
The court said the real test is whether such income is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in accordance with the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
It observed that maintenance laws are welfare-oriented measures designed to prevent destitution and that each case must be assessed on its own facts.
The adequacy of income, the cost of living, medical expenses, educational needs of children and other liabilities must all be taken into account before determining maintenance, the court said.
Maintenance for son continues
The husband did not dispute his obligation to support his minor son and raised objections only to the maintenance awarded to his wife.
The court therefore upheld the family court’s order directing payment of Rs 5,000 per month towards the child’s maintenance.
It held that there was no illegality or perversity in the finding relating to the child’s entitlement.
Plea for enhancement rejected
The wife’s separate revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance was also disposed of by the high court.
The court held that revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality and propriety of orders and does not ordinarily permit a fresh determination of maintenance amounts.
It was observed that any claim for modification based on changed circumstances can be pursued before the trial court under the appropriate statutory provisions.
