One paragraph wiped out three women's maintenance — now fixed.

One paragraph, a wife’s maintenance gone. The Supreme Court just fixed it.

Kiran Tomar and her two daughters had won maintenance from the Family Court at Gautambudh Nagar: maintenance for the wife and each of the two daughters. The husband — a man whose income tax returns showed just Rs 4.5 lakhs a year — went to the Allahabad High Court in criminal revision. The High Court, in a single paragraph, wiped out the entire award. The wife and daughters were left with nothing. Sixteen years of litigation? No. But the stakes were immediate: three women’s monthly survival, and a legal principle that every family court, every high court, and every lawyer arguing maintenance must now reckon with.

The Family Court’s detailed math

The story begins in Misc. Case No. 197/2016 before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar. On 11 March 2022, after hearing both sides, the Family Court passed a reasoned order. It granted maintenance to the wife and each of the two daughters. The court did not simply accept the husband’s income tax returns showing an annual income of Rs 4.5 lakhs. Instead, it assessed his income holistically — looking at his lifestyle, his business, his assets, and the standard of living the family had enjoyed before the separation. The Family Court found evidence that the husband was concealing his real income. It pegged his monthly earning capacity at around Rs 2 lakhs.

The husband was not satisfied. He approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by way of Criminal Revision.

The High Court’s one-paragraph reversal

On 10 August 2022, the High Court passed its order. Brief. Barely a paragraph. The court held that the Family Court had “no basis” for assessing the husband’s income at Rs 2 lakhs per month when his income tax returns showed only Rs 4.5 lakhs per annum. The High Court set aside the maintenance order entirely.

No engagement with the Family Court’s reasoning. No discussion of the evidence of concealment. No analysis of the settled law on how income tax returns are treated in maintenance proceedings. Just a summary reversal.

The wife and daughters were now without any maintenance. They approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 1865 of 2022.

What the husband argued

Before the Supreme Court, the husband’s counsel argued that the Family Court had no material to support its finding of income at Rs 2 lakhs per month. The income tax returns, they said, were the only reliable evidence. The High Court was right to set aside the order because the Family Court had acted without any evidentiary basis.

What the wife and daughters argued

The appellants’ counsel countered that the Family Court had conducted a thorough assessment. The court had noted the husband’s tendency to understate his income — a common feature in matrimonial disputes. The income tax returns, they argued, are not the final word on a person’s real income. The Family Court had relied on other evidence, including the husband’s lifestyle and business activities, to arrive at its figure. The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could not simply substitute its own view without finding perversity.

The Supreme Court’s answer: two principles, one clear message

Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, writing for the Bench also comprising Justice Hima Kohli, delivered the judgment on 31 October 2022. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the High Court’s order and restored the criminal revision for fresh hearing — but with a condition.

The Court laid down two key principles.

First: Income tax returns are not the gospel truth in maintenance cases. The Bench observed, at paragraph 10 of the judgment, that “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 — looking at the family’s accustomed standard of living, the husband’s assets, his business, his lifestyle. The ITR is one piece of evidence, not the whole picture.

Second: The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, must engage with the Family Court’s reasoning. The High Court cannot set aside a well-reasoned order in a cryptic, summary fashion. It must demonstrate that the lower court’s findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence. A one-paragraph order that merely disagrees with the Family Court’s assessment is not a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed on both counts. It had not appreciated the parameters of its revisional power. It had not engaged with the Family Court’s detailed reasoning. And it had treated the income tax returns as conclusive — which they are not.

The condition that changed everything

The Supreme Court did not simply remand the matter. 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 monthly maintenance by the 7th of each month, starting from November 2022.

This was a powerful move. The husband could not use the revision as a tool to delay payment. If he wanted his day in court, he had to first clear the arrears. The condition ensured that the wife and daughters would not be left without support while the legal process dragged on.

THE PLAY: When challenging a maintenance order in revision, the High Court must engage with the Family Court’s reasoning and cannot treat income tax returns as conclusive evidence of real income. If you are the payor, expect the court to condition your revision on payment of arrears. If you are the recipient, cite Kiran Tomar to argue that ITRs are not the final word and that the court must assess income holistically.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates, this judgment is a weapon. Every time a husband argues that his ITR shows low income, you now have a Supreme Court authority that says: that is not enough. The court must look at the whole picture — the lifestyle, the assets, the business, the standard of living. The ITR is a starting point, not a conclusion.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is personal. If you are in a matrimonial dispute, your income tax returns will not shield you. The court will look at your actual standard of living, your company’s performance, your assets. Understating income in your ITR may not help you avoid maintenance. The court will dig deeper.

For the High Courts, the message is clear: revisional jurisdiction is not a license to rewrite orders. You must engage with the lower court’s reasoning. A one-paragraph reversal will be set aside.

The bottom line

If you are seeking maintenance, the Family Court must assess real income holistically — ITRs are not conclusive. If you are challenging maintenance, you must pay arrears first. And if you are a High Court judge, you must write a reasoned order, not a summary dismissal. Kiran Tomar is now the benchmark for how maintenance disputes should be handled at every level.