Section 24 HMA | Absence of ITRs Corroborates ‘Nil Income’ Claim; Hyper-Technical Insistence on Documents Rejected: Delhi High Court

“To insist that a non-earning spouse must produce ITRs to prove their unemployment is to demand the impossible”— In a seminal ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, dismissed a husband's appeal challenging an interim maintenance order, clarifying that the disclosure guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha cannot be interpreted rigidly to defeat the statutory rights of a non-earning homemaker.

The Controversy: ‘Rajnesh v. Neha’ Compliance vs. Substantive Justice

The appeal, titled Suranjan Saha v. Rumpa Saha, challenged an order by the Family Court, Dwarka, which directed the appellant-husband (a Senior Advisor at Dell International earning approx. ₹1.44 Lakh/month) to pay ₹25,000/- per month each to his wife and daughter. The husband contended that the Family Court erred by treating the wife's income affidavit as "gospel truth" despite the absence of mandatory supporting documents like Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and expense bills, thereby violating the Supreme Court’s mandate in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The appellant further argued that the wife was a "person of means," citing a bank transfer of ₹82,000/- to her brother in 2018 and mutual fund investments. He also relied on a 2015 Settlement Agreement (MoU) to argue that maintenance issues had already been settled.

“Proceedings under Section 24 of the HMA are summary in nature, intended to provide immediate financial relief to the spouse during the pendency of litigation.”

Judicial Reasoning: The ‘Nil Income’ Paradox

Rejection the husband's technical objections, the High Court held that the requirement to file ITRs is predicated on the existence of taxable income. The Bench observed that for a homemaker claiming ‘Nil’ income, the absence of ITRs actually corroborates the claim rather than disproving it. The Court termed the husband's demand for grocery receipts and ITRs from a non-earning spouse as a "hyper-technical insistence" that cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive right of maintenance.

Regarding the alleged independent income based on a solitary bank transfer, the Court adopted a pragmatic view. It noted that when a separated wife resides with her parents, financial interdependencies—such as transfers to siblings or utilizing past savings—are natural domestic arrangements and do not constitute proof of "undisclosed professional income."

“The rigid insistence on expense bills (grocery receipts, etc.) in a proceeding under Section 24 of the HMA cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive right of maintenance.”

Sanctity of Statutory Rights Over Prior Settlements

The Court also dismantled the argument regarding the 2015 MoU. The Bench ruled that a six-year-old agreement, which the wife alleged was signed under coercion, cannot override the statutory right under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court emphasized that maintenance pendente lite is determined by the present needs of the wife and child and the husband's current capacity to pay, rendering the old MoU ineffective in barring the court's jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the husband's request for a joint bank account to supervise the utilization of the daughter's maintenance. The Bench held that seeking "custodial oversight" within a maintenance appeal is a procedural incongruity, as issues of guardianship and supervision fall outside the scope of Section 24 proceedings.

“A purported agreement entered into, six years prior... cannot override the statutory rights provided by law or preclude the Court from assessing the current needs.”

Finding the Family Court's assessment reasonable and based on the husband's admitted income, the High Court dismissed the appeal. All interim stays were vacated, and the appellant was directed to clear all outstanding arrears within one month.

Date of Decision: 23/12/2025