The Delhi High Court has held that a non-earning spouse cannot be compelled to produce Income Tax Returns (ITRs) to prove their unemployment, observing that insisting on such documents from a homemaker with no taxable income “is to demand the impossible.” The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by a husband against a Family Court order awarding interim maintenance to his wife and daughter.
The High Court adjudicated an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging an order dated March 22, 2021, passed by the Family Court, Dwarka. The Family Court had directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 25,000 per month each to the respondent-wife and their daughter as maintenance pendente lite. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, ruling that the absence of ITRs or detailed expense bills does not defeat a statutory right to maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), especially when the husband’s income is admitted and substantial.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on January 19, 2001, and a daughter was born in 2004. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties have been living separately since 2015. On February 4, 2020, the appellant-husband filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA.
During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the respondent-wife filed an application for maintenance pendente lite, seeking Rs. 50,000 per month. She submitted that the appellant was earning a net monthly income of Rs. 1,44,932 while working as a Senior Advisor at Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd.
The Family Court allowed her application and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,000 per month each to the wife and daughter. Aggrieved by this order, the husband approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant-husband contended that the Family Court failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021) and the Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma. He argued that the court erred in treating the wife’s income affidavit as the “gospel truth” despite the absence of mandatory supporting documents like ITRs and bills of expenses.
The counsel for the appellant further argued that the respondent was a person of means, pointing to a bank transfer of Rs. 82,000 made by her to her brother on April 25, 2018, and her investments in mutual funds. He asserted that she failed to explain these funds, which indicated an independent income.
Additionally, the appellant relied on a 2015 Settlement Agreement (MoU) regarding custody and maintenance, arguing that the impugned order disregarded this agreement. regarding the daughter’s maintenance, he expressed concern over the lack of oversight on the utilization of funds and requested a joint bank account.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench rejected the appellant’s reliance on the Rajnesh v. Neha judgment as “technically misplaced.” The Court clarified that while the guidelines in Rajnesh ensure transparency, they do not require a non-earning spouse to generate non-existent documents.
On the Requirement of ITRs for Homemakers: The Court observed:
“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… 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.”
On the Nature of Section 24 Proceedings: The Bench reiterated that proceedings under Section 24 of the HMA are summary in nature, intended to provide immediate relief. The Court noted that “rigid insistence on expense bills (grocery receipts, etc.)” cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive right of maintenance when the husband’s income is admitted.
On Alleged Income of the Wife: Addressing the appellant’s argument regarding the 2018 bank transfer, the Court held that a solitary transaction cannot prove steady income.
“In the ordinary course of human conduct, when a spouse seeks refuge at her parental home following matrimonial discord, their financial interdependencies with parents and siblings are natural. In the absence of any proof of income, salary or business, such entries are more logically attributable to domestic family arrangements or the utilization of past savings rather than undisclosed professional income.”
On the 2015 Settlement Agreement: The Court ruled that an MoU signed six years prior could not override statutory rights, stating that it “cannot override the statutory rights provided by law or preclude the Court from assessing the current needs of the Respondent and the child.”
On Oversight of Daughter’s Maintenance: The Court dismissed the request for a joint bank account for the daughter as “procedural incongruity,” noting that seeking custodial oversight falls outside the scope of a maintenance appeal.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s order. The Court held that the maintenance awarded was not excessive given the needs of two individuals and the appellant’s disposable income.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and all interim orders staying the maintenance were vacated. The appellant was directed to clear all outstanding arrears within one month.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Suranjan Saha v. Rumpa Saha
- Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 370/2023
- Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
