Affidavit of Disclosure for maintenance is required only at the interim stage, not after final adjudication, as per Apex Court guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

Sharmila U.Deshmukh, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties.

2. Challenge in the petitions is to the orders dated 8th December, 2023 passed by the Sessions Court allowing Miscellaneous Application below Exhibit-4 filed in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2021 and directing the parties to file their affidavits in compliance with the guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, 2021(2) SCC 324.

3. Office noting indicates that the notices issued to respondent Nos.1 to 4 is not received served or unserved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered the affidavit of service and submits that the respondents have been served by private notice, The affidavit of service is taken on record.

4. Pivotal issue arising for consideration is whether the filing of Affidavit of Disclosure of assets and liabilities as per the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) can be directed at the appellate stage challenging the final judgment of trial Court delivered under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act [for short, "the DV Act"].

5. Facts are referred only to have a clarity of the background in context of the stage at which the affidavit of disclosures of assets and liabilities is directed to be filed. An application being CC No.32/DV/2018 was filed by the petitioner seeking various reliefs under the DV Act which came to be adjudicated by the trial Court and vide judgment dated 18th February, 2020 the Trial Court directed respondent No.1-husband to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs.1 lakh each towards the wife and the minor daughter and compensation of Rs.5 lakh to the respondent-wife. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Trial Court, the respondent-husband filed appeal under Section 29 of DV Act before the Special Judge, Borivali Division at Dindoshi being Criminal Appeal No.44/2021. On 7th January, 2022 in the appellate proceedings, an application below Exhibit-4 came to be filed by the respondent-husband seeking a direction to the petitioner to file her affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities as per the guidelines of Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra).

6. The petitioner resisted the said application contending that the application is filed at the stage of appeal which has been expedited by the High Court, only to delay the proceedings. It was further contended that the affidavit of assets and liabilities is required to be filed only at the stage of grant of interim maintenance and not after the DV application has been finally adjudicated. The Sessions Court relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) which directed the filing of affidavit of assets and liabilities in all maintenance proceedings including pending proceedings held that the appeal being continuation of the proceedings, such a direction is applicable at the appellate stage also. The Sessions Court allowed the application and directed the parties to file their affidavit of assets and liabilities.

7. Heard Mr.Muzumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shilpa Gajare, learned APP for the respondent State.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court in detail through the decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) pointing out the categorization of various issues which were then dealt at length by the Apex Court. He would submit that the direction for filing of the affidavit of assets and liabilities is contained in Clause-II of Part-B under the heading of payment of interim maintenance and is therefore referable only to interim maintenance. He submits that the entire discussion of the Apex Court would indicate that the discussion is in the context of interim maintenance. He would submit that in the present case, as the DV application has been finally adjudicated, at the appellate stage, the Sessions Court could not have directed compliance with the guidelines of