Husband's tax return said Rs 4.5L/year. Family Court said Rs 24L/year. High Court reversed. Supreme Court said:

His income tax return showed Rs 4.5 lakhs a year. The Family Court said he actually earns Rs 24 lakhs a month. The High Court sided with the tax return. The Supreme Court just reversed that—

The courtroom fell silent as the husband's fingers traced the edge of his income tax return, the document he believed would end his financial obligations. He had walked into the Supreme Court on a crisp October morning in 2022 convinced he had won. The Allahabad High Court had just set aside a Family Court order that asked him to pay Rs 20,000 a month to his wife and Rs 15,000 each to his two daughters. The High Court's reasoning was simple: his income tax return showed only Rs 4.5 lakhs per annum. How could the Family Court say he earned Rs 2 lakhs a month?

The Supreme Court had one question to answer: Can a man escape paying maintenance to his wife and children by simply filing a low income tax return?

When the Family Court saw through the numbers

The story begins in Gautam Budh Nagar, where a wife—Kiran Tomar—and her two minor daughters filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (the provision that allows wives, children, and parents to claim financial support from a spouse or parent who refuses to maintain them). The Family Court judge pushed a stack of property statements across the desk, the papers rustling as the husband shifted in his seat.

The Family Court did not just look at the husband's income tax return. It looked at the whole picture. The husband had admitted in guardianship proceedings that he was a contractor operating jointly with his father. He had filed property statements that conveniently left out his income. The court assessed his real earning capacity at Rs 2 lakhs per month—not from a single document, but from a pattern of concealment.

The Family Court awarded Rs 20,000 monthly to the wife and Rs 15,000 each to the two daughters. It was a modest sum for a man the court believed earned Rs 24 lakhs a year. The smell of old paper and ink hung in the air as the order was signed—a lifeline for a woman and her children, a grievance for the man who would rather fight than pay.

The High Court's one-paragraph reversal

The husband challenged the order in revision before the Allahabad High Court. A revision under Section 397/401 of the CrPC (the High Court's power to review lower court decisions for legal errors) is not a full appeal. The High Court is supposed to check if the lower court made a serious legal mistake—not re-decide the entire case.

But the High Court did exactly that. In a single paragraph, it set aside the Family Court's detailed order. The reasoning: the Family Court had assessed the husband's income at Rs 2 lakhs per month while his income tax return showed only Rs 4.5 lakhs per annum. The High Court found this discrepancy unexplained and reversed the maintenance order entirely. The judgment felt thin—barely a page—as if the court had not bothered to engage with the evidence that had taken the Family Court weeks to weigh.

The wife and daughters had nowhere to go but the Supreme Court.

Why the Supreme Court called the High Court's reasoning flawed

Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli heard the appeal. The bench did not mince words. The Supreme Court held that income tax returns are not necessarily an accurate guide to real income. "Income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of real income. Particularly when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income," the bench observed. It is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what the real income is.

The Family Court, the Supreme Court noted, had done its job. It had conducted a holistic assessment of the evidence—the guardianship proceedings, the property statements, the husband's admission about his joint business with his father. The High Court, in its one-paragraph order, had not engaged with any of this reasoning. The bench held that the High Court had exceeded the limits of revisional jurisdiction. It had treated the income tax return as conclusive proof of income, which it is not. The law does not require a Family Court to accept a tax return at face value when other evidence points to a different reality.

The conditional order that changed everything

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the revision for fresh hearing. But the bench added a condition that made the husband pay attention: he must pay all arrears of maintenance by 31 December 2022. If he failed, his revision would stand dismissed automatically. Until the revision is decided, the husband must continue paying the monthly maintenance by the 7th of each month, starting from November 2022.

The message was clear. You can challenge a maintenance order, but you cannot use the legal process to avoid paying what your wife and children need to survive. The Supreme Court's order was dated 31 October 2022—a deadline that gave the husband exactly two months to clear the arrears or lose his right to challenge the maintenance order entirely.

What this means for every family court case

For advocates handling matrimonial disputes, this judgment is a reminder that income tax returns are just one piece of evidence. The Family Court can—and should—look at the lifestyle, business structure, property holdings, and admissions made in other proceedings to determine real income. The Supreme Court's ratio decidendi makes clear that the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction must be aware of the parameters of revisional jurisdiction and cannot set aside a Family Court's maintenance order merely on the basis of discrepancy with income tax returns without engaging with the reasons that weighed with the Family Court.

For husbands who think filing a low tax return is a shield against maintenance, the Supreme Court has just pulled that shield away. The case—Kiran Tomar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.—now stands as a precedent that income tax returns are not conclusive evidence of income, especially in matrimonial disputes where parties have a motive to understate their earnings.

THE PLAY: When assessing maintenance, Family Courts must conduct a holistic assessment of all evidence—income tax returns are not conclusive, especially when the party has a motive to understate income.

The husband's tax return said Rs 4.5 lakhs. The Supreme Court said: look again.