District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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