Sharp Decline In Husband's Declared Income Indicates Attempt To Understate Financial Capacity In Maintenance Cases: Delhi High Court

Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that a “sharp decline” in husband's declared income after marital fallout, without any convincing explanation, indicated a deliberate attempt to understate his financial capacity.

“In this Court‟s view, the learned Family Court has rightly observed that the ITR of the husband for the year 2018–19 reflected the husband's total income as ₹10,17,803/-...However, in the ITR filed for 2020–21, soon after the separation between the parties, his income was reduced to ₹1,80,000/-... in such a factual matrix, it was appropriate to take the 2018–19 ITR as the basis for determining his disposable income.”

The bench was dealing with a revision petition filed by the husband against the family court order granting interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month in favour of the wife and child.

The husband argued that he only has a meagre income of about ₹14,000/- per month, whereas the wife is a B.Com graduate, fully capable of earning.

The wife on the other hand contended that the husband and his family are affluent, owning multiple residential and commercial properties. She submitted that ₹3,25,780/- income from house property, as shown in the ITR of 2018-19 was deliberately reduced after their fallout, to evade liability.

After considering the material on record, the High Court said,

“the husband had transferred certain valuable properties in favour of his parents. Prima facie, such transfers, executed soon after the separation between the parties, appear to have been made with the object of shielding assets and thereby reducing his apparent financial capacity so as to avoid liability towards payment of maintenance.”

On the wife's capacity to earn, the Court said, “the wife is a B.Com. graduate who is still pursuing her Chartered Accountancy qualification and, more importantly, has the responsibility of caring for a minor child of barely five years of age. In such circumstances, the expectation that she should immediately secure employment is neither realistic nor justified.”

As such, it dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Mr. R.K. Mehta, Mr. Anshuman Gupta and Mr. Ajay Jawatkar, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Kartik Sandal, Mrs. Raveena Dewan Sandal, Mr. Rohan Sandal and Ms. Jhanavi Dewan, Advocates Mr. Sanjay Padam Jain and Mr. Vinay Kumar Bhasin, Advocates for R-3.

Case title: MV v. DS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1106

Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 750/2024

Click here to read order