Can't Insist Non-Earning Spouse To Produce ITRs To Prove Unemployment: Delhi High Court Upholds Maintenance Order

The Appeal before the High Court was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the order passed by the Family Court whereby the application filed by the Respondent wife for maintenance pendente lite in the Appellant husband’s divorce petition was allowed, and the interim maintenance of Rs 25,000 per month each to be paid to the Respondent-Wife and their daughter was ordered.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held, “The guidelines laid down in Rajnesh (supra) are designed to ensure transparency and to prevent parties from hiding their actual financial status. However, the requirement to file Income Tax Returns is predicated on the existence of taxable income. In the present case, the categorical stand of the Respondent-wife is that she has no independent source of income and is a homemaker. A person having ‘Nil’ income or income below the taxable limit is not statutorily required to file Income Tax Returns. To insist that a non-earning spouse must produce ITRs to prove their unemployment is to demand the impossible. The absence of ITRs, in this context, corroborates her claim of having no sufficient income rather than disproving it.”

Advocate Monika Singhal represented the Appellant, while Advocate Garima Bharadwaj represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnised in 2001, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. A daughter was born out of the said wedlock, who has been in the care and custody of the Respondent Wife. Due to differences and acrimony between the parties, they have been living separately since 2015. In the year 2020, the Appellant-Husband approached the Family Court and filed for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA. Pending the adjudication of the divorce petition, the Respondent-Wife filed an application seeking a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month for the sustenance of herself and their daughter.

The Family Court, vide the Impugned Order, allowed the application of the Respondent and directed the Appellant Husband to pay Rs 25,000 per month each to the Respondent-Wife and their daughter. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the respondent-wife was a homemaker and had no independent source of income. Thus, the absence of ITRs corroborated her claim of not sufficient income. The Bench further explained that the proceedings under Section 24 of the HMA are summary in nature, intended to provide immediate financial relief to the spouse during the pendency of litigation. The Court is required to take a prima facie view of the matter. The Bench also made it clear that while the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr (2020) mandate detailed disclosure, they do not fetter the discretion of the Court to award maintenance based on a reasonable assessment of the material on record.

“The rigid insistence on expense bills (grocery receipts, etc.) in a proceeding under Section 24 of the HMA cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive right of maintenance, especially when the Appellant’s income is admitted and substantial to maintain his dependents”, the order read.

The Bench was of the view that the mere existence of some savings or a one-time financial transaction to her brother did not imply that the Respondent-wife had a steady, independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself and the child in the same status as that of the husband. As per the Bench, the Appellant had failed to place on record any evidence showing the respondent was gainfully employed and earning an income sufficient to sustain herself and their daughter.

“Maintenance pendente lite, as provided under Section 24 of the HMA, is a statutory right intended to provide immediate financial support during the pendency of litigation between the parties. A purported agreement entered into, six years prior to the filing of this Appeal, which the Respondent-wife herself claims was signed under duress and coercion, cannot override the statutory rights provided by law or preclude the Court from assessing the current needs of the Respondent and the child based on the Appellant's ability to provide the same standard of living as they were accustomed to and would have enjoyed with him”, it held.

Noting that the findings of the Family Court were based on a realistic assessment of the material on record, the Bench held that the absence of ITRs or bills of expenses from the Respondent-wife, who is a non-earning spouse, residing in her parental home, does not constitute a violation of the guidelines in Rajnesh (supra). According to the Bench, it was reflective of her lack of independent income.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench ordered the appellant husband to clear all outstanding arrears within one month.

Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11762-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Monika Singhal, Abhishek Gautam

Respondent: Advocate Garima Bharadwaj, Respondent in-person

Click here to read/download Order