The Supreme Court confirmed on Tuesday that the Income Tax Return (ITR) does not reflect the parties’ actual earnings and cannot be an accurate guide in determining the parties’ earnings in marriage matters [Kiran Tomar and Ors vs. Uttar Pradesh State].
A Chamber of Judges DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli found that parties to marital disputes tended to underestimate their incomes, so family courts conducted comprehensive evaluations to determine their actual incomes. need to do it.
“It is clear that income tax returns do not always accurately represent actual income. In the holistic evaluation of the evidence, it is necessary to determine what the actual income of the second defendant would be in order to enable the applicant to live on a level comparable to that to which he was accustomed. Yes, together,” the court said.
In March of this year, the family court ordered the husband, the second defendant in the case, to pay child support of Rs.20,000 per month to his wife and Rs.15,000 each to his daughters.
His monthly income was 200,000 rupees.
In an appeal filed by his husband, the Allahabad High Court found that, according to the ITR, his husband’s monthly income was his Rs.37,500.
It was therefore found that the Family Court could not explain how the Rs.
This High Court decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court did not have the power to void the Family Court.
The High Court held that she failed to understand why she was given weight in family court, including the fact that her husband’s ITR did not include income from a business with her father. did.
The Supreme Court should have been aware of the parameters of appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court said.
added that children’s needs must be fully met.
The
Chamber of Commerce also found that her husband had failed to comply with an earlier injunction ordered by the Supreme Court to pay late fees as alimony.
“Usually we would have tended to issue an injunction against the second defendant, but we are issuing a conditional injunction to give him another chance,” the court said. .
The court remanded the matter to the High Court for retrial, but made it clear that the arrears must be paid by the end of the year or that her husband’s appeal to the High Court would be dismissed. did.
In addition, regular child support will also be paid during the High Court proceedings, according to the court.
Senior Attorney Ravi Prakash Melotra appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Her senior attorney Priya Hingolani appeared for her husband.