ORDER :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner – husband is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No.43 of 2021, whereby the learned trial Court has granted interim maintenance to the respondents to the extent of Rs.12,300/- per month.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if both the parties agreed to file affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities in the light of law laid down in judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 before the trial Court, he wants to withdraw this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in submitting details of assets and liabilities in affidavit before the learned trial Court.

4. In the order impugned, it appears that the learned trial Court has fixed the alleged interim amount of maintenance merely on the basis of averments made in application for grant of interim maintenance and reply of it. The trial Court, however, should have called for the affidavits from both the parties before determining the alleged amount of maintenance and should have followed the guidelines made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh (supra), wherein it has been laid down at paragraph 72 as under :

“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, as the case may be, throughout the country;

72.2 (b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;

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 the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the Affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the Court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings. On the failure to file the Affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on basis of the Affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;

72.4 (d) The above format may be modified by the court concerned, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the court concerned to issue necessary directions in this regard.

72.5 (e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is required, the court concerned may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof.

72.6 (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 of the CPC. On filing of the Affidavit, the Court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 of the C.P.C or Section 165 of the Evidence Act 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The Court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the