ITR showed Rs 4.5 lakhs. Family Court saw Rs 2 lakhs a month. High Court reversed.

Two daughters, one wife, and a High Court that forgot its job

Kiran Tomar and her two daughters had a Family Court order. The husband-father was to pay them Rs 20,000 a month for the wife and Rs 15,000 each for the daughters. That was March 2022. By August, the Allahabad High Court had wiped it out in a single paragraph. The husband’s argument? His income tax returns showed only Rs 4.5 lakhs a year. The Family Court had found his real income at Rs 2 lakhs a month. The High Court said the Family Court had no basis. The Supreme Court disagreed. Sharply.

What the Family Court actually did

The case began as Misc. Case No. 197/2016 before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar. Kiran Tomar and her two daughters — the appellants — sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The husband-respondent claimed his income was a modest Rs 4.5 lakhs per annum, backed by his income tax returns.

The Family Court didn’t buy it. It examined the evidence — the husband’s lifestyle, his business dealings, the standard of living the family had enjoyed. It concluded that the ITRs were not an accurate guide. The real income was far higher. On 11 March 2022, the court directed the husband to pay Rs 20,000 per month to the wife and Rs 15,000 per month to each of the two daughters. That was a total of Rs 50,000 a month for a family of three.

The High Court’s one-paragraph reversal

The husband moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by way of Criminal Revision No. 1670/2022. His grievance was straightforward: the Family Court had no basis to peg his income at Rs 2 lakhs per month when his ITR showed only Rs 4.5 lakhs per annum. The High Court agreed. In a brief order dated 10 August 2022, it set aside the Family Court’s maintenance award. The reasoning was sparse — essentially, the High Court held that the Family Court’s income assessment was unsupported by evidence.

The wife and daughters were left with nothing. They approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 1865 of 2022.

What the Supreme Court saw that the High Court missed

The Bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli took up the appeal. The judgment, authored by Justice Chandrachud, was delivered on 31 October 2022.

The Supreme Court’s first observation was about the High Court’s approach. The High Court had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC. That jurisdiction is limited. A revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence like an appellate court. It can only interfere if the lower court’s findings are perverse — that is, wholly unsupported by evidence or based on a misreading of the record. The Family Court had given a detailed, reasoned order. The High Court had not engaged with that reasoning. It had simply substituted its own view in a cryptic, summary fashion. That was an error.

But the deeper point was about the ITRs themselves.

The rule about income tax returns in maintenance cases

This is the core of the judgment. The Supreme Court held, in terms that will be cited in every maintenance dispute going forward:

THE RULE: Income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income of a party. Particularly in matrimonial conflicts, there is a tendency to underestimate income. The Family Court must determine real income on a holistic assessment of the evidence to enable dependants to live in a condition commensurate with their accustomed status.

This is not a new principle — it has been stated before — but the Supreme Court’s crisp restatement in this case gives it fresh teeth. The Family Court had done exactly what the law requires: it looked beyond the ITRs at the actual evidence of the husband’s lifestyle and business. The High Court, by mechanically accepting the ITR figure, had missed the point entirely.

The Supreme Court also noted the general tendency among parties in matrimonial disputes to underestimate their income. This observation, though technically obiter, is significant. It signals that courts should approach self-reported income figures — whether ITRs, salary slips, or business records — with a healthy skepticism in maintenance proceedings.

The conditional restoration

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. But it did not simply restore the Family Court’s maintenance award. Instead, it restored Criminal Revision No. 1670/2022 to the file of the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits. And it imposed a condition: the husband must pay all arrears of maintenance — as per the Family Court order dated 11 March 2022 — by 31 December 2022. If he fails to pay by that date, the Criminal Revision shall stand dismissed automatically. During the pendency of the revision, the husband must continue to pay the monthly maintenance by the 7th of each month, starting from November 2022.

This is a powerful procedural move. The Supreme Court effectively said: you want to challenge the maintenance order? Fine. But you must first comply with it. No more litigating while the wife and daughters starve.

Why this matters for practitioners

For advocates handling maintenance cases, this judgment is a double-edged weapon. On one side, it reinforces that ITRs are not gospel. A Family Court can — and should — look at the actual evidence of income. On the other side, it warns High Courts that they cannot overturn well-reasoned Family Court orders in a cursory manner. The revisional jurisdiction has limits.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is personal. If you are in a matrimonial dispute, your ITR showing low income will not protect you. The court will look at your lifestyle, your business, your assets. The days of hiding behind a modest tax return are over.

The bottom line

If you are a Family Court judge, do what the Gautambudh Nagar court did: examine the evidence holistically, and don’t let ITRs be the last word. If you are a High Court judge, do what the Allahabad High Court failed to do: engage with the Family Court’s reasoning before you overturn it. And if you are a husband resisting maintenance, pay up first — or your revision will be dismissed before it even begins.