What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court's order. The court disbelieved the appellant's ITR in light of his admitted higher monthly expenses.

The appellant, a father of two, appealed against a maintenance order of Rs. 33,000 per month for his wife and children. He claimed his monthly income was Rs. 40,000 as per his ITR, but admitted to monthly expenses of Rs. 50,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the Family Court was justified in disbelieving the appellant's Income Tax Return for determining maintenance pendente lite, considering his admitted expenses.

Arti Alloys Private Limited vs Income Tax Office, Ward 3(2) New… | Delhi High Court 2025

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 311/2025, CM APPL. 53950/2025 (Delay of 36 days in filing the appeal) & CM APPL. 53951/2025 (Ex.)

ANSHU AGGARWAL

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Prasoon Kumar & Ms. Deepali, Advs.

versus

SAKSHI AGGARWAL

.....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R %

28.08.2025

The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the Order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in HMA No. 1566 of 2023. 2. The Appellant, who is the father of two school-going children, runs a chemist shop in Chandni Chowk, and he claims that his monthly expenses are Rs. 50,000/- per month. 3. The learned Family Court has only awarded Rs. 33,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for Appellant’s wife/Respondent and his two school-going children. 4. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that, as per the Income Tax Return [“ITR”] of the Appellant, his monthly earning is Rs. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:35:26

40,000/-. 5. The Family Court, however, has disbelieved the ITR, particularly in view of the fact that the Appellant himself admits to incurring Rs. 50,000/- towards general monthly expenses. 6. In these circumstances, no ground is made out for interference. 7. Accordingly, the present Appeal, along with pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. AUGUST 28, 2025/v/va/RN

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:35:26

ARTI ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 3(2) NEW DELHI

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments