The Delhi High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by a man, seeking an inquiry into the finances of his wife and her family who claimed to have paid him ₹2 crores dowry, in addition to spending crores of rupees on their wedding. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the complaint stemmed from a matrimonial feud and the man was unable to indicate the provision under which such a complaint was made to the Income Tax department.

It further observed, “Petitioner is unable to indicate as to what fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner have been infracted or violated. From the submissions as also after perusing the pleadings of the petitioner, it appears that the present petition is predicated upon a matrimonial feud between the petitioner and respondent no.3.” 

It was the case of the petitioner that in 2022, he married respondent no.3 in a simple ceremony in Delhi. However, the marriage failed and respondent no.3 filed a police complaint alleging that she and her parents gave Rs.2 crores as dowry and simultaneously spent crores of rupees at the wedding.

The petitioner submitted that under Section 296ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cash transactions exceeding Rs.2,00,000/- are prohibited. He contended that in view of the clear admissions made by respondent no.3, the Department is duty-bound to investigate whether the private Respondents reported significant income to justify the alleged funds spent on dowry and wedding. Petitioner had urged the Department to verify the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of the private respondents and take necessary legal action in case of perjury, tax evasion or financial misconduct. Aggrieved by inaction on his complaint, he had approached the High Court

The Court observed that Petitioner’s complaint was not under any statutory scheme or regulatory mechanism available under the Income Tax Act. “Thus the question of non-response to such complaint constituting a violation of the fundamental right or even a civil or statutory right of the petitioner is non-existent,” it said. The record also reveals, the Court noted, that the disputes are hotly contested and involve highly complex and disputed questions of facts which will not be within the purview of the Income Tax department to adjudicate.

Case title: Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors