The Delhi High Court recently affirmed a family court’s decision to consider the husband’s two-year-old Income Tax Returns to assess his ability to pay maintenance. The husband, an advocate by profession, showed a “sharp decline” in declared income following the marital breakdown.
Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that, in the absence of a plausible explanation, this drop suggested 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 challenging the family court’s order granting interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month to his wife and child.
The husband claimed that his monthly income was only around ₹14,000 and argued that the wife, being a B.Com graduate, was fully capable of earning.
The wife, however, maintained that the husband and his family are affluent, owning multiple residential and commercial properties.
She contended that the ₹3,25,780 income from house property reported in the 2018-19 ITR had been deliberately reduced after their marital fallout to evade his maintenance liability.
After reviewing the evidence on record, the High Court stated,
“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 observed that she is a B.Com graduate currently pursuing her Chartered Accountancy qualification and, importantly, is responsible for caring for their minor child, just five years old. Under these circumstances, expecting her to immediately find employment is neither realistic nor reasonable.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the husband’s plea.