Compliance with Supreme Court mandates for affidavit submissions in maintenance proceedings is crucial, and willful non-compliance can affect case outcomes, particularly regarding alimony assessments.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT BANERJI, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Under challenge in the appeal is the order of 03.03.2017 in M.C.No.109/2013 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Chitradurga, whereby the petition filed by the respondent seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The Actwas allowed granting decree of divorce. Moreover, the interim order dated 03.01.2017, by which I.A.No.II filed by the respondent seeking permanent alimony of Rs.40 lakhs was partly allowed by directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakhs, has been made absolute.

3. I.A.No.1/2025 has been filed proposing to amend the prayer made in the appeal by seeking to challenge only the interim order passed in I.A.No.II which was made absolute in the judgment. No one appears for the respondent. The appellant being the dominus litus seeks to curtail his prayer by the aforesaid amendment. He is permitted to do so. The application - Ι.Α.Νο.1/2025 is thus allowed. Amendment shall be carried out during the course of the day.

4. It is evident from the prayer made in the connected M.F.A.No.1445/2017 that it seeks the same relief as is sought in the amended prayer in M.F.A.No.5812/2017. Two appeals seeking the same relief are not maintainable. Therefore, M.F.A.No.1445/2017 is dismissed.

5. An affidavit of assets and liabilities has been filed on behalf of the respondent but office objection has been raised regarding non-filing of affidavit regarding assets and liabilities by the learned counsel for the appellant despite orders dated 26.06.2023, 14.07.2023 and 03.02.2025.

6. Today, a memo has been filed by the appellant which is counter signed by his advocate stating that since the respondent has not furnished the Income Tax Return details, hence the appellant is not filing his assets and liabilities in the above appeal. Non-filing of the assets and liabilities by the appellant in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324 , would have its consequences. If the respondent has not fully furnished the details as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, she would have to face the consequences. However, such default on part of a spouse would not absolve the liability of the husband/appellant to mandatorily submit his affidavit. Despite repeated time being granted by the Court, the appellant has not only filed his affidavit, but is refusing to file his affidavit of Assets and Liabilities as reflected in today’s memo. Such conduct of the appellant, apart from being contumacious is also willful and deliberate and is in violation of the mandate of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha

7. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha , the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

72.1. (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country;

………………

72.3. (c) The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to t