Mandatorily Pass Order Asking Parties To File 'Disclosure Of Assets & Liabilities' Affidavit In Maintenance Proceedings: Allahabad HC To Judicial Officers

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday directed all the Judicial Magistrates as well as Presiding Officers of Family Courts in the state, dealing with maintenance proceedings, to mandatorily pass a specific order directing the parties to file their affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance with the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32."It seems appropriate to direct that when an application under Section 125 of CrPC or a complaint under Section 12 of D.V. Act or an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is filed before the Court concerned, it should by passing a specific order on the order-sheet direct the applicant to file his/her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court," a bench of Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed while directing the registry to circulate its order to all the Judicial Officers of the state.It may be noted that in Rajnesh Vs. Neha case (supra), the Top Court had, inter alia, observed that in maintenance proceedings, since a wife tends to exaggerate her needs and the husband tends to conceal his actual income, therefore the parties must be directed to file a prescribed a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in such proceedings. Last year, in the case of Aditi Alias Mithi vs Jitesh Sharma 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 963, the Apex Court reiterated the said direction. Read more about the Court's directions here: Judges Not Following Guidelines On Maintenance: Supreme Court Directs To Circulate 'Rajnesh v. Neha' Judgment To All Judicial OfficersThe High Court was essentially dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by a Husband challenging the order of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Kushinagar under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 directing him to pay an amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to his wife (opposite party no. 2) and Rs. 1,000/- to his daughter from the date of the order. The said order was earlier upheld by the District Judge Kushinagar at Padrauna.Before the High Court, the Counsel for the husband contended that he is a poor person and he is already paying maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC as well as under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, however, he was further directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as maintenance under the DV Act as well.It was his counsel's primary contention that the Courts below failed to follow the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) as they did not direct him to file his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities. It was further argued that it was the duty of the trial Court to direct the applicant to file his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities. In the absence of such an affidavit, the Court cannot arrive at a rightful conclusion about the financial status of the applicant.At the outset, the Court perused the order of the Magistrate Court to note that while passing the judgement directing the applicant to pay maintenance to wife and daughter under the DV Act, it completely ignored the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha case (supra). "...it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to direct the parties to file an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities. The learned Magistrate passed the judgement merely on the basis of averments made by the parties," the Court remarked.The High Court emphasized that the trial court ought to have taken into account the existing maintenance payments of Rs. 3000/- under Section 125 of CrPC and Rs. 2000/- under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act made by the applicant to his wife. Additionally, the single judge also noted that the applicant's income was not considered when determining the maintenance amount.In view of the above, the impugned order was set aside to the extent of the manner adopted by the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court for granting the maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and its payment from the date of the order.Further, the trial court was directed to invite an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities from the parties in terms of guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and to pass a fresh order for maintenance in view of the said guidelines and pursuant to the filing of an affidavit by the parties.AppearancesCounsel for Applicant: Arvind Prabodh Dubey, Ashok Kumar Giri Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Mohd. Naushad Ahmad KhanCase title - Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25862 of 2023]Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 164Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mandatorily Pass Order Asking Parties To File 'Disclosure Of Assets & Liabilities' Affidavit In Maintenance Proceedings: Allahabad HC To Judicial Officers

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mandatorily Pass Order Asking Parties To File 'Disclosure Of Assets & Liabilities' Affidavit In Maintenance Proceedings: Allahabad HC To Judicial Officers

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers