As per case facts, petitioner No.2, an Assistant Commissioner, was sanctioned for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on alleged disproportionate assets. The petitioners appealed, arguing the sanction ... was arbitrary and mechanical, failing to consider the independent professional and agricultural income of petitioner No.1, the spouse, whose income tax returns were duly filed and assets declared. They contended that the investigation wrongly negated petitioner No.1's income and clubbed her assets/expenditure with petitioner No.2, despite the Excise Commissioner's recommendation against sanction. The question arose whether the sanctioning authority properly applied its mind, considering all relevant material, including the independent income of petitioner No.1, or if it acted mechanically by denying her independent professional identity and incorrectly calculating the disproportionate assets. Finally, the court found that the investigating agency and the sanctioning authority wrongly denied petitioner No.1's independent professional identity and made an unreasonable assessment by including her income in petitioner No.2's. Emphasizing that a sanction order must reflect a fair and objective application of mind to all material, the court highlighted that income duly disclosed and substantiated through tax filings constitutes "known" and legitimate income. Citing precedents, it affirmed that a wife's income must be considered when calculating total assets and income, and a dynamic approach is needed for long check periods to account for economic fluctuations. Therefore, the High Court concluded that if petitioner No.1's justified income were considered, sanction should not have been granted. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned sanction order and subsequent proceedings were quashed.