J. R. MIDHA
Kusum Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Mahinder Kumar Sharma – Respondent
To ensure the confidentiality of the parties involved, it is essential to mask their names in all legal documents and proceedings. Based on the detailed guidelines provided, the following steps should be taken:
Mask the Names of the Parties: Replace the actual names of the appellant and respondent with generic identifiers such as [Party A] and [Party B], or similar neutral labels throughout the document (!) .
Mask Personal Details: All personal identifiers, including addresses, family member names, and specific occupational details, should be replaced with placeholders or generic terms to prevent identification (!) (!) (!) .
Mask Financial and Asset Details: Any specific information related to income, assets, liabilities, or expenditure that could lead to identifying the parties must be anonymized. This includes bank account numbers, property details, and specific asset descriptions (!) (!) (!) .
Mask Specific Identifiers in Affidavits: The affidavit format explicitly requires the deponent to declare their identity and details. These should be replaced with placeholders, ensuring that the identity of the deponent remains confidential while maintaining the integrity of the document (!) (!) .
Masking in Supporting Documents: All supporting documents, such as income tax returns, bank statements, property papers, and other relevant records, should be similarly anonymized before submission or public disclosure (!) (!) (!) .
Maintain Anonymity in Court Proceedings: During hearings and filings, parties should be referred to by their masked identifiers, and all personal details should be excluded from public records or shared only in sealed or confidential annexures as per court directions (!) (!) .
Use of Confidential Formats: The prescribed formats for affidavits of assets, income, and expenditure include provisions for masking sensitive information. Courts are empowered to modify the extent of masking depending on the case specifics, especially for vulnerable or low-income parties (!) (!) .
By following these guidelines, the confidentiality of the parties involved can be preserved while ensuring compliance with judicial procedures and maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
JUDGMENT
J.R. Midha, J. - In matrimonial cases, the Court has to ascertain the financial capacity/status of both the parties for fixing maintenance. In many developed countries, the law prescribes a comprehensive format of assets, income and expenditure to be filed by both the parties at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation. However, there is no provision of law in our country for directing the parties to disclose their assets, income and expenditure in a particular format.
2. Vide judgment dated 14th January, 2015, this Court, after considering the International Best Practices, issued directions and formulated an affidavit of assets, income and expenditure to be filed by both parties at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation. This Court modified the aforesaid directions and format of assets, income and expenditure vide judgments dated 29th May, 2017 and 06th December, 2017.
3. In the earlier judgments dated 14th January, 2015; 29th May, 2017 and 06th December, 2017, this Court considered ten affidavits of assets, income and expenditure used in five countries. Fifty more
B.P. Achala Anand vs. S. Appi Reddy
Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam
Bhandari Engineers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Maharia Raj Joint Venture
Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma
Geeta Satish Gokarna vs. Satish Shankarrao Gokarna
Govindrao Ranoji Musale vs. Sou. Anandibai
Himanshu Singh Sabharwal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of Bihar
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs. State of Maharashtra
Jaspreet Singh vs. Gurleen Kaur
Jasraj Inder Singh vs. Hemraj Multanchand
Jayakrishna Panigrahi vs. Surekha panigrahi
Kusum Sharma vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India
Nandani Sanjiv Ahuja vs. Sanjiv Birsen Ahuja
Ram Chander vs. State of Haryana
Ritesh Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ritula Singh vs. Rajeshwar Singh
Sessions Judge Nellore Referring Officer vs. Intha Ramana Reddy
Silla Jagannadha Prasad @ Ramu vs. Silla Lalitha Kumar
Surinder Kaur vs. Madan Gopal Singh
Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India
Ved Parkash Kharbanda vs. Vimal Bindal
Vidhya Viswanathan vs. Kartik Balakrishnan
Vimla (K.) vs. Veeraswamy (K.)
Vinny Parmvir Parmar vs. Parmvir Parmar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.