Gujarat High Court Confirms ₹50,000 Monthly Maintenance — Income Tax Returns Insufficient to Prove Income in Matrimonial Cases

Case Overview

Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)

The Gujarat High Court recently delivered a significant ruling in a matrimonial maintenance dispute, dismissing a criminal revision application filed by a husband who sought to challenge the Family Court's direction to pay ₹50,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The judgment reinforces critical principles governing maintenance obligations under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly regarding how courts must assess income in matrimonial proceedings and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

Background and Factual Matrix

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 01.06.1995 at Gondal. Following the marriage, both parties resided together in rented premises at Vidhyanagar, where the wife also assisted her husband in his business. A son, Aditya, was born to the couple on 03.08.1999. In 2016, the parties jointly acquired immovable property at Shanti Devasiya Bungalows.

Over the course of time, the matrimonial relationship deteriorated significantly. The wife alleged sustained mental and physical harassment. A mortgage deed dated 21.08.2012 (No. 7226 of 2012) was executed with HDFC Bank in respect of the joint property, followed by another document on 26.09.2017. Additionally, eight cheques of ₹15 lakhs each issued by Canon Company were reportedly found in the husband's possession at the matrimonial home.

Unable to secure adequate financial support from her husband for day-to-day needs, the wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC on 12.03.2019 before the Family Court, Anand. During the pendency of those proceedings, an interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month was directed to be paid. After full consideration of all evidence on record, the Family Court — vide its order dated 10.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 81 of 2019 — significantly enhanced the maintenance amount to ₹50,000 per month, payable from the date of the application, i.e., 12.03.2019.

Aggrieved by this enhancement, the husband preferred a criminal revision application before the Gujarat High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Arguments Raised by the Husband

The assessee-husband, represented by his advocate, advanced the following contentions before the High Court:

  • The Family Court's order was unjust, improper, and contrary to settled legal principles, as it was based primarily on assumptions and presumptions rather than proper appreciation of evidence.
  • At the time of filing the application under Section 125 CrPC, the wife was residing with the husband and her expenses were being met by him, rendering the application itself not maintainable.
  • The enhancement from ₹15,000 to ₹50,000 per month was arbitrary and lacked cogent material to support it.
  • The Family Court had failed to give due weight to key financial evidence, including income tax returns, audit reports, and the testimony of the Income Tax Officer, which collectively demonstrated that the husband's income was limited — particularly after COVID-19 had severely impacted his business.
  • The evidence of witness Raj Sureshchandra Tiwari (Exh.58), which corroborated the husband's financial difficulties, was disregarded without reason.
  • The wife had herself admitted that the husband regularly deposited amounts into a joint bank account and bore household and educational expenses of their son.
  • The proceedings were initiated with mala fide intent to harass and pressurise the husband.
  • The business recession had made it impossible to sustain such a high maintenance payment.

Arguments Raised on Behalf of the Wife

The wife's advocate strongly opposed the revision and presented a contrasting factual picture: