The Delhi High Court ruled that a homemaker with no taxable income cannot be compelled to file Income Tax Returns to prove unemployment. The Court held that the absence of ITRs does not defeat a statutory claim for maintenance.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reinforcing the rights of non-earning spouses, the Delhi High Court has held that a homemaker with no taxable income cannot be compelled to produce Income Tax Returns (ITRs) to establish unemployment while seeking maintenance. The Court observed that insisting on such documents “is to demand the impossible.”
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, which dismissed a husband’s appeal against an order granting interim maintenance to his wife and daughter.
Case Background
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on January 19, 2001, and a daughter was born from the wedlock in 2004. Owing to matrimonial discord, the parties have been living separately since 2015. Subsequently, on February 4, 2020, the husband filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the wife moved an application seeking maintenance pendente lite, claiming a sum of ₹50,000 per month.
The wife stated that the husband was earning a net monthly income of ₹1,44,932 as a Senior Advisor at Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd.
On March 22, 2021, the Family Court, Dwarka, directed the husband to pay ₹25,000 per month each to the wife and daughter as maintenance pendente lite. The husband challenged this order before the Delhi High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Husband’s Arguments Before the High Court
The appellant-husband argued that:
- The Family Court failed to follow the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma
- The wife’s income affidavit was accepted without mandatory documents like ITRs and expense bills
- A bank transfer of ₹82,000 made by the wife to her brother and her mutual fund investments showed independent income
- A 2015 Settlement Agreement (MoU) on maintenance and custody was ignored
- There was no oversight on the use of maintenance for the daughter, and a joint bank account should have been set up.
ALSO READ: In-Laws Can’t Evict Widow from Matrimonial Home, Rules Kerala High Court
Delhi High Court’s Observations
1. Homemakers Cannot Be Asked to Produce ITRs
Rejecting the husband’s reliance on Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court clarified:
“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 Court held that the absence of ITRs actually supports, rather than negates, the wife’s claim of having no sufficient income.
2. Maintenance Proceedings Are Summary in Nature
The Bench reiterated that Section 24 of the HMA is meant to provide immediate financial relief during matrimonial litigation.
“Rigid insistence on expense bills such as grocery receipts cannot be allowed to defeat a statutory right to maintenance when the husband’s income is admitted and substantial.”
3. Alleged Income of the Wife Not Proven
Addressing the ₹82,000 bank transfer:
“A solitary transaction cannot prove steady income.”
The Court noted that financial support from family members during matrimonial discord is natural and does not imply independent earning capacity.
4. Old Settlement Agreement Cannot Override Law
The Court ruled that the 2015 MoU could not override statutory rights:
“It cannot preclude the Court from assessing the current needs of the respondent and the child.”
5. No Scope for Oversight in Maintenance Appeal
The request for a joint bank account for the daughter was dismissed as a procedural incongruity, with the Court observing that custodial oversight does not fall within the scope of a maintenance appeal.
The Delhi High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s order and held that:
- The maintenance amount was reasonable and not excessive
- The husband’s income was admitted and sufficient
- The wife and child’s needs justified the award
As a result, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and vacated all interim orders that had stayed the operation of the maintenance order. The Court further directed the appellant-husband to clear all outstanding arrears of maintenance within a period of one month.
Case Title:
Suranjan Saha v. Rumpa Saha
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 370/2023
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Maintenance
