Income Tax Returns Don’t Reflect True Earnings, Rejects Plea to Reduce Maintenance | Biz Flow Kit

In a recent and very important ruling, the Gujarat High Court flatly refused to grant any sort of relief to the petitioner. Instead, the court firmly upheld the earlier decision made by the Family Court, which strictly directed the husband to pay a sum of ₹50,000 every single month as maintenance to his estranged wife.

This entire legal battle stems from a criminal revision application that was filed by the husband, Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya. He was basically trying to challenge the older order passed by the Family Court back on December 10, 2021.

The main argument presented by the applicant was that the Family Court had completely and unfairly ignored his official Income Tax Returns (ITR) as well as the direct testimony provided by an IT Officer. According to these tax documents, the husband’s annual income was supposedly sitting at a mere ₹2.12 to ₹2.23 lakhs.

To further his case, the petitioner heavily claimed that his business operations had entirely shut down due to the severe economic recession and the heavy financial impact brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Looking at the background of the case, the wife had originally filed her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her plea, she clearly stated that their marriage had taken place a long time ago, specifically on June 1, 1995, in the city of Gondal.

When the proceedings first began, the Family Court had ordered the husband to pay an amount of ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance. The husband did not agree with this and appealed to the High Court, which at that time issued a formal notice and even granted him an interim stay. However, the case was later thoroughly reviewed based strictly on its actual merits.

During the final hearings, the petitioner kept insisting that the lower court had turned a blind eye to vital financial evidence. He felt they completely overlooked his ITRs and tax audit reports, while also ignoring the immense financial hardship he was facing due to his business struggling, especially in the post-COVID-19 era.

However, the High Court took a very different stance. Here is a breakdown of their main observations:

Beneficial Legislation: The Court clearly noted that maintenance proceedings filed under Section 125 of the CrPC are essentially designed to act as beneficial legislation. This establishes the clear legal principle that a husband has a primary, non-negotiable obligation to financially support his wife and any minor children.

Hiding True Income: Drawing upon a significant ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tomar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court strongly emphasised that Income Tax Returns might not always give an accurate picture of an individual’s true income.

Read Also: Gujarat HC: Revised ITR U/S 139(5) Allowed Only for Errors in the Original Return

This is especially true in matrimonial disputes, where there is often a huge tendency for people to deliberately downplay or hide their actual earnings just to evade their financial responsibility.

Decrease in Earnings: The Court also referenced another major Supreme Court case, Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan (2015). Based on this, the bench firmly asserted that just a simple decrease in someone’s income is absolutely insufficient grounds to completely relieve a husband of his legal maintenance obligations.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, while examining the evidence, pointed out a major flaw in the husband’s defence. He observed that the husband’s constant claims regarding his business closure were directly contradicted by other solid documentation that showed active, ongoing business operations.

For instance, there was a police report on record concerning a massive theft of ₹25 lakhs directly from his “closed” office, along with ongoing legal actions he was taking to recover money from his various debtors.

Furthermore, it was noted that the husband suspiciously failed to provide his actual Profit & Loss accounts to the court. At the same time, evidence showed that he appeared to be living quite a lavish lifestyle, which included frequent foreign travels and various financial investments.

Read Also: Balance Sheet and P&L New Format: How ITR Software Prepares

The Court also took a very sympathetic and factual look at the Family Court’s accurate medical assessment of the wife, who unfortunately suffers from cancer, weighing this against the husband’s clear earning potential.

Ultimately, finding absolutely no errors or flaws in the lower court’s decision-making process, the High Court officially dismissed the revision application and definitively confirmed the order for the monthly maintenance to stay at ₹50,000.