She said he earns Rs 2 lakh/month. His tax return said Rs 37,500. The court said: both are wrong.

His income tax return showed Rs 4.5 lakh per year. The Family Court found he actually earns Rs 2 lakh per month. The High Court said: impossible.

A husband walked into the Allahabad High Court holding his income tax return like a shield. The document, a thin sheaf of paper, stated he earned Rs 4.5 lakhs a year — barely Rs 37,500 a month. The Family Court had ordered him to pay Rs 20,000 to his wife and Rs 15,000 each to his two daughters. That was Rs 50,000 a month going out. The husband argued the numbers didn't add up. The High Court agreed in a single paragraph and wiped out the entire maintenance order.

The question the Supreme Court had to answer: can a man hide behind his income tax return when his family says he earns far more?

When the Family Court looked past the ITR

The wife — Kiran Tomar — and her two daughters had filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (a provision that allows wives, children and parents to claim financial support from a husband or father who refuses to maintain them). The Family Court at Gautambudh Nagar heard the case. The husband produced his income tax return showing Rs 4.5 lakhs per annum. But the court wasn't convinced. The judge's gaze lingered on the return, then shifted to the wife's testimony about the husband's business, his car, the children's school fees.

The Family Court found evidence that the husband was hiding his real income. It assessed his earnings holistically — looking at his lifestyle, his business, his spending patterns — and concluded that he actually earned around Rs 2 lakhs per month. On that basis, it ordered Rs 20,000 per month for the wife and Rs 15,000 each for the two daughters. The courtroom fell silent as the order was read; the husband's hand tightened on the ITR document he still clutched.

The husband didn't accept this. He went to the Allahabad High Court by way of criminal revision (a legal challenge asking a higher court to review the lower court's decision). His argument was simple: the income tax department says I earn Rs 4.5 lakhs a year. The Family Court had no basis to say I earn Rs 2 lakhs a month. The High Court agreed — in one paragraph — and set aside the entire maintenance order. The order was so brief it felt like a dismissal, not a judgment.

The one-paragraph problem

The High Court's order was brief — barely a page. It held that the Family Court's finding on income was without basis. It didn't engage with the evidence the Family Court had considered. It didn't explain why the Family Court's reasoning was wrong. It simply said: the husband's income is Rs 4.5 lakhs per annum, and the maintenance order cannot stand. The silence in the courtroom when the order was read was heavy; the wife's daughters, barely teenagers, stared at the floor.

The wife and daughters then approached the Supreme Court. They argued that the High Court had failed to do its job — that a revisional court (a court reviewing a lower court's decision) cannot overturn a well-reasoned order without showing that the lower court's findings were perverse (so unreasonable that no reasonable court could have reached them).

Why the Supreme Court stepped in

The Supreme Court bench — Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli — heard the appeal on 31 October 2022. The courtroom was still; the bench leaned forward as the arguments unfolded. The court found that the High Court had made two fundamental errors.

First, the High Court treated the income tax return as the final word on the husband's income. The Supreme Court held, in a passage that would become the core of the judgment: "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 business or profession, and any signs of concealment.

Second, the High Court failed to appreciate the limits of its revisional jurisdiction (the power of a higher court to review a lower court's decision). A revisional court cannot set aside a detailed, reasoned order in a cryptic, summary fashion. It must engage with the lower court's reasoning and demonstrate that the findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence. The High Court did none of this. The bench's posture was firm as Justice Chandrachud delivered the finding: the High Court's order was a rubber stamp, not a review.

The condition that changed everything

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the criminal revision for a fresh hearing. But it added a catch — a condition that made the husband pay for his attempt to hide his income.

The court directed that the husband must pay all arrears of maintenance by 31 December 2022. If he failed to pay by that date, the criminal revision would stand dismissed — meaning the Family Court's original order would be fully restored. During the pendency of the fresh hearing, the husband must continue paying monthly maintenance by the 7th of each month. The file felt thin in the clerk's hands as the order was recorded; the weight of the condition was anything but light.

The message was clear: you cannot challenge a maintenance order while refusing to pay the maintenance that has already accrued. If you want the High Court to hear your case again, you must first clear the arrears.

The judgment also clarified the legal framework. Section 125 CrPC exists to prevent destitution — it is not a punishment but a shield. The Supreme Court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC is not a licence to re-write the Family Court's findings; it is a check against perversity. The High Court had confused its role, treating its power to review as a power to replace.

The case also touched on the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which governs the welfare of minor children. The two daughters, as minors, were entitled to maintenance that reflected not just the father's declared income but the family's accustomed standard of living. The Family Court had correctly considered this; the High Court had ignored it entirely.

What this means for matrimonial maintenance cases

The Supreme Court's judgment in Kiran Tomar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 904) has several practical implications for similar disputes:

First, income tax returns are not conclusive. A husband cannot hide behind his ITR while living a lifestyle that suggests far higher earnings. The Family Court must look at the totality of evidence — bank statements, property holdings, business turnover, children's school fees, family holidays — to determine real income. The Supreme Court's observation that "there is a tendency to underestimate income" in matrimonial conflicts is now a guiding principle.

Second, revisional courts must engage with reasoning. A High Court cannot overturn a Family Court's maintenance order in a one-paragraph order. It must demonstrate that the lower court's findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence. A cryptic order is not a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Third, maintenance arrears must be paid as a condition of challenge. The Supreme Court's conditional restoration — pay arrears by 31 December 2022 or the revision stands dismissed — sets a precedent. A husband who challenges maintenance cannot stall payments while the challenge is pending. The arrears must be cleared first.

The husband's income tax return was never the full story. The Supreme Court made sure the law saw what the return didn't show — the wife's testimony, the children's needs, the family's accustomed standard of living. The return was a document; the court saw a life.

THE PLAY: When a Family Court finds evidence of income concealment, the High Court cannot overturn that finding without engaging with the evidence — and a husband who challenges maintenance must pay arrears as a condition of being heard.