"No man is ever as anti-feminist as a really feminine woman": A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli noted that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income of parties in matrimonial disputes: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that income tax returns (ITR) do not reflect the actual income of a party and cannot be an accurate guide to determine the income of parties in matrimonial cases [Kiran Tomar and ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh].
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli noted that during matrimonial disputes, parties tend to underestimate incomes and, therefore, family courts have to carry out a holistic assessment to determine the real income.
"It is well-settled that income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income of the second respondent so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together," the Court said.
A family court had in March this year ordered a husband, the second respondent in the instant case, to pay ₹20,000 per month to his wife and ₹15,000 each to their daughters as maintenance.
The sum was based on a finding that his monthly income was ₹2 lakh.
On a revision petition filed by the husband, the Allahabad High Court noted that his monthly income as per his ITR was ₹37,500.
It, therefore, held that the family court had not indicated how it arrived at the sum of ₹2 lakh per month and set aside that ruling.
This verdict of the High Court came to be assailed before the Supreme Court.
The top court said that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the family court.
It opined that the High Court did not appreciate the reasons that weighed with the family court, which included the fact that the husband had, in his ITR, not included the income from the business he was running with his father.
The High Court ought to have been aware of the parameters of its revisional jurisdiction, the Supreme Court said.
It added that the children's needs have to be duly met.
The bench also noted that the husband had failed to comply with an earlier interim order passed by it in which the top court had directed him to pay the arrears of maintenance.
"Ordinarily, we would have been inclined to pass a coercive order against the second respondent, but, in order to furnish a further opportunity to him to comply, we are passing a conditional order," the Court said.
The Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration but made it clear that arrears have to be paid by the end of this year, failing which the husband's revision plea before the High Court will stand dismissed.
Further, regular maintenance will also have to be paid during the course of proceedings before the High Court, the bench directed.
Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash Mehrotra appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate Priya Hingorani appeared for the husband.
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
Please share the article on other platforms
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
Related Articles
- "He who frames the question wins the debate": Adv. Sai Deepak argued his point, "I am sorry to say this, and let me try and tone down the rigour of my submission, to the extent of saying, I believe they have a cause- I just don’t believe they have a case"
- "Honest conviction is my courage; the Constitution is my guide": VP Jagdeep Dhankar took exception to Courts quashing changes made by parliament to the Constitution, says "Nowhere in the world Constitutional provisions are undone by courts like in India"
- Justice Gavai countered to SG Tushar Mehta, "Skies will not fall. What is the alarming urgency? We will hear you", Supreme Court grants interim bail to Teesta Setalvad after 2 urgent Saturday night hearings, stays High Court order to surrender for a week
- "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made": CJI NV Ramana retires today, a look at his last sitting in SC, Ex-SCBA President Dushyant Dave said, "You have been citizens' judge, you stood up for them to uphold their rights and Constitution"
- "Unheard of:" Bombay High Court deprecated Maharashtra government for keeping a 21-year-old student Nikhil Bhamre in jail for a social media post that did not even name NCP Chief Sharad Pawar
- Controversial Marxist leader Brinda Karat reaches Jahangirpuri to implement Supreme Court order, fanatic Leftist journos outrage over order not being followed immediately and took to Twitter to attack NDMC officials
- "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it": Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking the opening of secret rooms of Taj Mahal to put to rest the "alleged history" of monument including claims that it was a Shiva temple, Tejo Mahalaya
- "We are all born gifted. That is our true inheritance": Supreme Court observes that female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession, says "Not to grant benefit of 'Survivorship to daughter in father's property' is bad Law"
- "No neutrality, there is only greater or lesser awareness of one's bias": Joshimath Sinking - Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing, "there are democratically elected institutions to look into issue & everything of urgency does not have to come to court"
- "It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law": SC orders new rules for appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners similar to appointment of CBI Director by a committee that includes the PM, Leader of Opposition and CJI
- "There is difference between blasphemy and expressing religious opinions based on one’s knowledge of the subject": Historic decision by Madras High Court from 2019
- "In law, not all authorities are 'public'": In a twist that could inspire satirists everywhere, the Bombay High Court clarifies that the Archbishop of Goa isn't under RTI, apparently, divine decrees are no match for bureaucratic ones in the court of law!
- "I am not inclined": In a pivotal turn, the Gujarat HC hints at no reprieve for Teesta Setalvad, accused of crafting 'mass graves' stories post-Gujarat riots, associate Rehman Khan's allegations point to her ordering the controversial exhumation of bodies
- "प्यार तूने क्या किया": In Kolkata, 36-year-old divorcee Sanghati Paul stabs 30-year-old Sarthak Das, her live-in partner, multiple times, Das treated her son as his own, Paul confessed to the crime, igniting a city-wide debate on hidden feminism dangers
- Justice Gaurang Kanth who took oath as judge of the Calcutta High Court this morning, his letter surfaced recently where he was seeking suspension of police officers who failed to keep the door of his residence locked resulting in the loss of his pet dog