The main legal point established in the judgment is that the filing of affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings is mandatory, and the absence of evidence on the part of the respondent will have consequences.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9th May, 2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the learned `Family Court') in HMA No. 181/2023, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to call upon the respondent to file his affidavit of income and assets before the cross-examination of the respondent is concluded by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not appreciating that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnish vs. Neha & Anr., 2021(2) SCC 324, it is mandatory for the parties to file their affidavits of income and assets even in pending matters. He submits that the petitioner would have been able to cross-examine the respondent fully only after such affidavit is filed on record, the learned Tribunal, however, has erred in observing that the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be applicable only in cases where the interim maintenance is to be fixed, and since the same has already been fixed in the present case, the same shall not be applicable.

3. On the other hand, the respondent, who appears in person, submits that interim maintenance was fixed by the learned Family Courts at Bandra, Mumbai, vide order dated 13.10.2017 passed in Interim Application No. 187/2016. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, being Writ Petition No. 1215/2018. The said petition was dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 13.04.2018. The said order has became final.

4. He submits that the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent and the petition filed by the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the `DV Act') were transferred to the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, by the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) no. 214/2021, titled Shraddha Gupta vs. Sumit Jain, directing as under:

"Both parties join in the request that case may be disposed of by the transferee Court at the earliest. We direct that the Transferee Family Court at Patiala House, New Delhi will endeavour to dispose of the matter at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the production of the copy before the Court."

5. He submits that in spite of the above direction, the petitioner delayed the cross-examination of the petitioner, and vide an order dated 20.04.2023, the learned Family Court was pleased to close the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent. Subsequently, by an order dated 26.04.2023, the application seeking recall of the order dated 20.04.2023 was also dismissed by the learned Family Court. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court by way of petition, being CM(M) 712/2023. This Court by its judgment and order dated 02.05.2023 allowed the said petition directing as under:

"9. The petition is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned order to the aforesaid extent and directing the learned Family Court to grant two dates to the petitioner for further cross examination of PW-1. It is further directed that the petitioner would not be required to tender her evidence before completion of the cross examination of PW-1, in terms of this order. The learned Family Court will also ensure that the cross examination by the petitioner is completed at the earliest without granting any undue adjournments to any of the parties."

6. In spite of the said direction, the petitioner only wanted to delay the cross-examination of the respondent, and for that purpose, the petitioner made the prayer that the respondent should first be called upon to file the affidavit of his income and assets before the cross-examination is concluded. He submits that the learned Family Court has, th