The Court held that the sanctioning authority acted without proper application of mind and ignored material demonstrating that substantial portions of income had been legally disclosed through Income Tax Returns and departmental declarations. It was argued that the wife had been practising law even prior to marriage and had consistently filed tax returns reflecting her earnings. The Bench emphasised that sanction must be based on evaluation of the entire material and cannot ignore legally disclosed income. The Court held that “known sources of income” include income duly disclosed under service conduct rules and reflected in Income Tax Returns, observing that income formally declared to tax authorities and intimated to the department constitutes legitimate income in law. Importantly, the Court held that once the spouse’s professional and agricultural income was considered, the alleged disproportionate assets fell well within permissible limits and could not justify criminal prosecution.