Allahabad High Court Summons Husband's ITRs To Determine Income, Remands Matter To Trial Court To Decide DV Case

Recently, the Allahabad High Court summoned the income tax returns of a woman's husband for ascertaining his income.In proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the wife-applicant had filed an application seeking production of the income tax returns of the husband as he had disputed being an architect and claimed to be a labour. The Trial Court rejected the application under Section 91 of CrPC for production of the returns on grounds that there was no need to summon such records. The rejection order was challenged by the wife before the High Court on grounds that the rejection was arbitrary and that the husband had filed false affidavit before the Trial Court claiming himself to be a labour when in fact he was an architect. Applicant-wife relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh versus Neha and others, wherein it had been held that,“"72.6. If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned."The Court on the earlier occasion had directed the counsel for the income tax department to produce the tax returns filed by the husband. Once they were produced, the Court noted that the husband is an architect and “in the AY 2023-24 his total income was Rs. 4,85,290.00 and in the AY 2024-25 his income was Rs. 5,07,680.00.”The Court directed the Trial Court to decide afresh following the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh versus Neha and others.Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Srivastava, Satendra Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kushagra Dikshit, Neerav ChitravanshiCase Title: Mariya Zafar and another v. State of UP Thru. Pric. Sec. Home Lucknow and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156Click Here To Read/Download Order

Allahabad High Court Summons Husband's ITRs To Determine Income, Remands Matter To Trial Court To Decide DV Case

Upasna Agrawal

Tags