MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Income Tax Returns Do Not Necessarily Furnish an Accurate Guide of the Real Income: Gujarat High Court in Maintenance Revision Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Gujarat, under the bench of Honourable Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi, dismissed a revision application challenging a Family Court’s order for maintenance. The husband’s application, made under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., contested the monthly maintenance of Rs. 40,000 awarded to his wife and daughter.

The core legal issue involved the assessment of maintenance, focusing on the husband’s income and the wife’s earning capacity. The husband’s appeal centered around his alleged inability to pay the determined maintenance and questioning the wife’s earning potential.

The revision application arose from an earlier Family Court order mandating the husband to pay maintenance. The husband argued that his income was insufficient for such maintenance and that his wife, being qualified and previously employed, could sustain herself.

The court scrutinized the husband’s income, considering his possible underreporting and the absence of substantial evidence regarding the wife’s current employment status.

Emphasis was placed on the husband’s responsibility under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to reveal his true income.

The judgment referred to multiple precedents to emphasize the importance of a comprehensive assessment of evidence in maintenance cases.

Recognizing the tendency to underreport income in matrimonial disputes, the Court highlighted the need for a realistic assessment of the husband’s earnings.

The Court deliberated on various factors, including the standard of living during the marriage and the financial status of both parties.

Decision: The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order, dismissing the revision application. The Court found no merit in the husband’s plea under the constrained revisional jurisdiction of Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

Date of Decision: 21/03/2024.

MEGHRAJSINH VS MEGHAVINIBA

Similar News