Income Tax Return Cannot Be Considered As Conclusive Proof Of Income Especially In Maintenance Cases: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court was considering a Revision Application against an order reducing the quantum of maintenance.
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, Calcutta High Court
While asking a man to pay higher amount of maintenance to his estranged wife, the Calcutta High Court has observed that the actual income of an individual would be very different from the figures shown in the income tax return and this is why the Courts often look beyond I.T. returns while determining the income of a person, especially in proceedings such as maintenance cases.
The High Court was considering the Revision Application preferred by the wife/petitioner assailing the order passed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), reducing the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 30,000 to the tune of Rs. 20,000 per month. Another application was filed by the husband assailing the same order, seeking a further reduction in the quantum of maintenance from the tune of Rs. 20,000 and also with respect to the date of effect, which should have been from the date of retirement of the estranged husband.
Noting that the husband had categorically relied on the annual return for assessment year 2024-2025, the Single Bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De said, “...it would be axiomatic to remind one and all the settled proposition of law that the income tax return of an individual cannot be considered as conclusive proof of his income as primarily the return is based on the information provided by the tax payer himself…Therefore, the actual income of an individual would indeed be very different from the figures shown in the income tax return that is why the courts often look beyond I.T. returns while determining the income of a person, especially in proceedings such as maintenance cases.”
Advocate Avik Ghatak represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Asit Baran Raut represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The couple got married, and a male child was born out of wedlock. In the wake of a distressing matrimonial discord, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, which was disposed of by promulgating an order of maintenance to the tune of Rs 30,000 per month in favour of the petitioner/wife. Considering the changed circumstances, i.e. retirement of the opposite party /husband, one application under Section 127 CrPC was filed by the husband for seeking reduction of the maintenance, which was also disposed of by an order thereby reducing the maintenance to the tune of Rs 20,000 per month.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the main argument of the estranged husband revolved around the factum of financial constraint due to his retirement from service, his own medical expenses and the fact that their son, aged 25 years, was no longer a dependent. The Bench explained that while determining the quantum of maintenance the courts have to consider certain factors like residential comfort, health care standards, social and economic status of both the parties, qualification and employment, Sources of income and assets, marital standard of living benchmark & inflation. “The Hon’ble Apex Court in recent judgments has underscored the importance of the fact that post separation maintenance should mirror the life style of the wife during period of their married life”, it added.
It was noticed that the petitioner in connection with the application had himself admitted that he had to incur expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000 towards his driver’s salary. But, ironically, he was not inclined to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000 even to the person who has spent a considerable period of her life with him and also with whom he has a son. “ In this connection, it would be pertinent to mention that any settlements to be arrived at between the parties must take into account actual living standards and cost of inflation. On the other hand, it reinforces the idea that women who have devoted years to domestic responsibilities deserve to maintain a comparable life after separation”, it said.
On the issue regarding the exact date from which the reduction should be effective, the Bench assessed Section 127 of the CrPC and observed that there is no specific provision which sheds light on effective date of determination of such reduction. “Therefore, the object of the very statutory provision grants discretion to the Court to decide the operative date”, it noted.
The Bench thus directed the petitioner/estranged husband to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month along with a 5% hike every two years. It further directed that the present order should take effect from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. December 30, 2023.
Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: C.R.R. 770 of 2024)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Avik Ghatak
Respondent: Advocate Asit Baran Raut