Matrimonial & Family Law Decided October 31, 2022

Kiran Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Official Law Report Citations 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1539 | 2022 (14) SCALE 339 | Criminal Appeal No. 1865 of 2022 | 2022 INSC 1145

Bench Composition / Coram Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud & Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli

Statutory Provisions & Mappings: Section 125 CrPC Section 144 BNSS 2023 Section 106 IEA / 109 BSA Income Tax Returns Inference Section 91 CrPC / 94 BNSS

Official Supreme Court Judgment Record Certified Copy

Complete verbatim judicial transcript, bench coram, ratio decidendi, and official law report citations.

Download PDF

1. Comprehensive Factual Matrix & Procedural Trajectory

The appellant, Kiran Tomar, and respondent No. 2, Ajay Kumar Tomar, were married in 1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two children were born out of the wedlock. Following persistent matrimonial discord and allegations of cruelty, the appellant-wife and her minor children were turned out of the matrimonial home in 2011.

In 2011, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, seeking monthly maintenance for herself and the two minor children. The husband was a businessman engaged in wholesale trading, operating multiple commercial vehicles, and owning valuable urban properties. However, in his defense before the Family Court, the husband claimed to be an impoverished individual earning a meager income. To substantiate his plea, he produced Income Tax Returns (ITRs) showing negligible annual profits.

The Family Court conducted an exhaustive evidentiary inquiry. Evaluating the husband's business activities, property holdings, vehicle ownership, and children's school status, the Family Court held that the husband deliberately suppressed his true income. Invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court drew an adverse inference and awarded ₹20,000 per month as maintenance for the wife and children. The husband filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, relying mechanistically on the husband's low ITR figures, drastically reduced the maintenance to ₹8,000 per month without analyzing the husband's asset profile. Aggrieved by this drastic reduction, the wife approached the Supreme Court of India.

2. Specific Legal Issues & Questions of Law Framed

Evidentiary Value of Income Tax Returns in Maintenance Proceedings: Whether Income Tax Returns filed by a self-employed businessman are conclusive proof of his true income under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS).
Application of Section 106 Evidence Act (Section 109 BSA 2023): What is the evidentiary burden on a husband regarding facts 'especially within his knowledge' concerning his business profits, hidden bank accounts, and commercial assets.
Judicial Estimation Based on Lifestyle and Standard of Living: How should Family Courts quantify maintenance when an affluent husband deliberately deflates his taxable income and conceals earnings.
Role of High Court in Revisional Jurisdiction: Whether the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC by reappreciating factual evidence and relying blindly on tax returns to slash maintenance.
Forensic Financial Discovery in Matrimonial Disputes: What proactive powers must courts exercise under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) to summon financial and banking records.

3. Authoritative Ratio Decidendi & Binding Legal Principles

1. Income Tax Returns are Not Conclusive of Real Income: The Supreme Court authoritatively held that Income Tax Returns filed by self-employed individuals or businessmen cannot be treated as holy writ or conclusive evidence of real financial capacity. It is a matter of common knowledge that business persons often organize their financial affairs, incorporate tax deductions, and understate real income in tax returns. Family courts must look beyond formal tax returns to assess real earning capacity.

2. Evidentiary Burden Under Section 106 Evidence Act (Section 109 BSA): The husband's real income, investments, and business turnover are facts especially within his knowledge. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), the burden lies squarely on the husband to make full, honest, and transparent disclosure. If the husband fails to disclose his true finances or produces selective tax returns, the court is duty-bound to draw a robust adverse inference against him.

3. Holistic Lifestyle and Asset-Based Assessment: Where direct documentary proof of income is suppressed, the court must arrive at a realistic estimate of the husband's income by examining objective markers: ownership of real estate, luxury vehicles, international travel, domestic staff, credit card expenditures, and the standard of living maintained prior to separation.

4. Reversal of High Court's Mechanical Approach: The Supreme Court condemned the mechanical approach of the High Court in accepting the husband's nominal ITR figures and slashing the maintenance of the wife and children. Such a mechanical approach rewards tax evasion and starves vulnerable dependents.

5. Alignment with Rajnesh v. Neha Disclosure Regime: The Court reaffirmed that the comprehensive affidavit mandated by Rajnesh v. Neha requires disclosure of all assets, bank accounts, and partnerships. When a spouse breaches this disclosure duty, the court is fully justified in estimating income on a higher scale.

4. Significant Obiter Dicta & Institutional Observations

The Supreme Court made compelling observations regarding financial transparency in family law:

Sanctity of the Affidavit of Disclosure: Reiterated that under Rajnesh v. Neha, every respondent must file a sworn Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. Concealment of assets in this affidavit constitutes perjury and contempt of court.
Children's Entitlement to Father's Real Status: Minor children are entitled to enjoy the socioeconomic status that the father's real wealth commands, not the artificial poverty depicted on his tax returns.
Deployment of Section 91 CrPC / Section 94 BNSS: Family courts were exhorted to proactively summon third-party records (banks, transport authorities, registrar of properties) to ascertain the truth when affidavits are deficient.

5. Operative Verdict & Dispositive Relief

The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by Kiran Tomar, set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, and restored the order of the Family Court awarding maintenance of ₹20,000 per month to the wife and children.

The Court directed the husband to clear all accumulated arrears within four months in four equated monthly installments, failing which the Family Court was directed to initiate immediate recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) CrPC.

6. Statutory Analysis & Comparative Legislative Mapping

Statutory Concept	Indian Evidence Act, 1872	Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)
Burden of Proving Fact Especially Within Knowledge	Section 106 IEA	Section 109 BSA, 2023 (Verbatim re-enactment)
Presumption of Adverse Inference	Section 114, Illustration (g) IEA	Section 119, Illustration (g) BSA, 2023
Substantive Maintenance Provision	Section 125 CrPC	Section 144 BNSS, 2023
Summons for Document Production	Section 91 CrPC	Section 94 BNSS, 2023

The comparative mapping under the new criminal codes demonstrates that Section 109 BSA and Section 144 BNSS seamlessly adopt the doctrine of Kiran Tomar. Courts adjudicating under Section 144 BNSS are empowered to deploy Section 109 BSA to draw adverse inferences against spouses who suppress bank records or rely solely on artificially deflated tax returns.

7. Subsequent Judicial Treatment & Precedential Lineage

Kiran Tomar v. State of UP is the premier authority cited by applicants facing business-owning spouses:

Delhi High Court in Multiple Revisions: Held that a husband owning a fleet of commercial vehicles cannot claim an income of ₹10,000 per month based on ITRs; the trial court must assess maintenance based on vehicle ownership and commercial turnover.
Punjab & Haryana High Court: Applied Kiran Tomar to hold that in the unorganized and business sectors, lifestyle indicators such as credit card usage and foreign trips outweigh paper tax losses.
Karnataka High Court: Ruled that self-employed professionals cannot hide behind nominal tax deductions to evade child support.

8. Practical Litigation Playbook & Strategic Checklist

Strategic Playbook: Piercing the 'Low Income Tax Return' Shield

For the Applicant's Counsel:
- File an application under Section 91 CrPC / Section 94 BNSS seeking production of all bank account statements, GST returns, and credit card statements of the husband and his business entities.
- Place on record photographs of properties, commercial vehicles, club memberships, and school fees paid for children.
- Invoke Section 109 BSA (Section 106 IEA) to urge the court to draw an adverse inference if the husband fails to produce complete accounts.
For the Husband's Counsel:
- Do not rely solely on basic ITR acknowledgments. Produce audited balance sheets, profit & loss statements, business loan liability schedules, and explain business overheads with cogent financial documentation.

Previous Precedent All Landmark Precedents Next Precedent