Facts of the Case

In a matrimonial maintenance dispute, the trial court had fixed maintenance at Rs.13,000/month (Rs.10,000 for the wife and Rs.3,000 for the child) by order dated 04.07.2019, rejecting the husband's claim that he earned only Rs.8,500/month as a shop helper. The trial court relied on his Income Tax Returns showing income exceeding Rs.22,000/month, his ownership/use of a car, foreign travel, and other lifestyle indicators, and also noted an RTI reply from the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax Department, showing that Rs.2,28,863/- had been deposited towards GST between July 2017 and May 2018 for a business run from a shop at Dilshad Colony -- though the document did not establish who actually owned or ran that shop. The husband challenged the maintenance order (and a subsequent order dated 23.12.2020) before the Delhi High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the trial court's maintenance determination of Rs.13,000/month required modification.
  2. Whether the documentary evidence, including GST deposit records, supported an inference of concealed income.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner (husband) is not working anywhere and this should not be a ground to debar his wife and child of maintenance.
  • The salary certificate showing income of Rs.8,500/month as a shop helper should be accepted as correct.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The husband's own Income Tax Returns showed income exceeding Rs.22,000/month, apart from unexplained income from other sources.
  • Lifestyle indicators (a car, a foreign honeymoon trip, a hair transplant) were inconsistent with the claimed income of Rs.8,500/month.
  • An RTI reply showed GST deposits linked to a shop business allegedly run by the husband, though ownership of that shop was disputed.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found no ground made out for setting aside the order dated 23.12.2020 or for a different finding than the one recorded on 04.07.2019.
  • The GST deposit evidence was inconclusive on its own since it did not establish who owned or ran the shop, but was not necessary to the outcome since the ITRs alone established income above the claimed Rs.8,500/month.
  • The petition was dismissed and the maintenance order of Rs.13,000/month was left undisturbed.

Important Clarification

This is a matrimonial maintenance case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, not a tax or GST case. GST deposit records surfaced only as one piece of circumstantial income evidence, and the Court did not treat it as determinative. It should not be read as any ruling on GST law.

Sections Involved

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – interim maintenance proceedings
  • Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (pending separately)

Decision – In Favour of

Respondent (Manisha Chawla) – the petition challenging the maintenance order was dismissed.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1561/2021, CRL.M.A. 10898/2021, 18154-55/2021
Coram: Justice Yogesh Khanna
Date of Order: 19 September 2022

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.