In a significant move to ensure fair maintenance in domestic violence cases, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has quashed a magistrate’s order that previously rejected a woman’s plea to compel her husband to produce his income and property details.
The bench, presided over by Justice Brij Raj Singh, observed that the disclosure of income is a “crucial component” in cases involving maintenance and domestic violence. The Court asserted that magistrates possess the authority to force a husband to submit financial documents, including Income Tax Returns (ITR), to ensure that the court can accurately assess his financial capacity.
The legal battle originated from a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by a woman and her minor son. The petitioner had initially approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (First) in Lucknow under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. She leveled serious allegations against her husband and in-laws, citing dowry harassment, physical assault, and financial torture.
As part of the proceedings, the woman moved an application under Section 91 of the BNSS, requesting the court to direct her husband to submit his ITRs and other financial records. She argued that these documents were essential to determine a fair maintenance amount. However, on January 19, the magistrate court rejected her plea, prompting the woman to seek relief from the High Court.
During the High Court proceedings, a stark contrast emerged between the husband’s claims and his actual financial status. While the husband had described himself as a “labourer” before the magistrate’s court to potentially mitigate maintenance obligations, the High Court’s investigation revealed a different reality.
Upon summoning records from the Income Tax Department for the last two fiscal years, the Court found that the husband is a professional architect. The records indicated an annual income ranging between ₹4.85 lakh and ₹5.07 lakh.
Justice Brij Raj Singh emphasized that transparency in financial disclosure is not optional. The Court cited the landmark 2021 Supreme Court verdict in Rajnesh vs. Neha, which established mandatory guidelines for the filing of “Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities” by both parties in matrimonial matters.
The High Court noted:
“Disclosure of income is important in cases related to maintenance and domestic violence, and the magistrate can force the husband to give details of his income and property by issuing an order in this regard.”
The Court further directed the husband to provide a copy of his Income Tax Returns directly to his wife.
The High Court has now directed the Lucknow magistrate to reconsider the wife’s application afresh. The lower court has been given a strict timeline of six weeks to pass a new order in light of these observations, ensuring that the maintenance proceedings reflect the husband’s actual financial standing.
