ITR Not Necessarily Furnish An Accurate Guide of Real Income, Parties Engaged In A Matrimonial Conflict Are Having Tendency To Underestimate Income: Supreme Court

Case Title: Kiran Tomar & Ors. (Appellant) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Respondent)

Date of Order: October 31, 2022

Legal Events:

• The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 10 August 2022 in Criminal Revision No 1670 of 2022.
• The Additional Principal Judge of the Family Court at District Gautambudh Nagar, by an order dated 11 March 2022, allowed Miscellaneous Case No 197 of 2016 instituted by the appellants under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and directed the second respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs 20,000 per month to the first appellant and Rs 15,000 each to the second and third appellants, who are daughters of the first appellant and the second respondent.

The High Court set aside the judgement of Family Court and encapsulated the entire reasoning in the following paragraph:

“Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Perusal of the impugned Judgement and order shows that the learned Family Court has recorded the findings that the revisionist is earning Rs. 2 lacs per month, on the other hand, the Income Tax Return (I.T.R.) filed by the revisionist shows that he is earning Rs. 4.5 lacs per annum. Furthermore, this Court failed to appreciate that on what basis the learned Family Court has recorded the findings that the income of revisionist is Rs. 2 lacs per month, when there is nothing on record to demonstrate the same.”

The judgment of the High Court does not reflect a correct appreciation of the reasons which weighed with the Family Court. On the basis of observation of Family Court on various counts, it came to the conclusion that the second respondent had concealed the income which he earns in the business which he carries on together with his father from the court.

The Family Court observed that the first appellant is not working on a post in the company and, as a matter of fact, her expenses including on the children is borne by her parents, brother and sister. In this backdrop, the Family Court issued directions for the payment of maintenance in its order dated 11 March 2022.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that The High Court ought to have been aware of the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction.

The Apex Court noted that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income.

It is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to restore the Criminal Revision, namely, Criminal Revision No 1670 of 2022 to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for consideration afresh. In order to facilitate this exercise, the impugned order of the High Court dated 10 August 2022 is set aside and the Criminal Revision is restored to the file of the High Court.

It was ordered that during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, the second respondent shall continue to pay the amount, as directed by the Family Court, from month to month on or before the seventh day of each succeeding month commencing from 7 November 2022, subject to such further orders as may be passed by the High Court.

Case Details:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No 1865 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 8768 of 2022)

Bench:

Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

Justice Hima Kohli