CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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

Latest Legal News