Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Ishant Jain S/o Vijay Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Roopal Jain D/o Shri Vijaraj Jain – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2524 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2023
Cr.P.C. - Maintenance Proceedings - 482 - 67, 68, 69, 72, 72.1, 72.2, 72.3, 72.4, 72.5, 72.6, 134 - The court discussed the guidelines on the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including the process of filing, submission, and modification of the affidavit, and the consequences of failure to comply. The judgment emphasized the need for uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure and the court's power to issue necessary directions. It also addressed the procedure for seeking further information and the use of interrogatories and relevant documents. The judgment was communicated to all High Courts and District Courts for awareness and implementation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order and direct the respondent to produce necessary documents mentioned in the application. The petitioner argued that the respondent was duty-bound to provide relevant information for determining the quantum of maintenance payable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Trial Court was bound to follow the mandate of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, which governs the field of maintenance proceedings and provides detailed guidelines on seeking information for the determination of the quantum of maintenance. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner was given liberty to file an application under Order 11 of CPC for necessary interrogatories, with the directive that the Trial Court must implement the mandate of the Rajnesh vs. Neha judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the duty of the respondent to provide relevant information for determining the quantum of maintenance, the applicability of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, and the Trial Court's adherence to the guidelines set forth in the said judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the firm opinion that the Trial Court was bound to follow the mandate of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, which governs the field of maintenance proceedings and provides detailed guidelines on seeking information for the determination of the quantum of maintenance.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner was given liberty to file an application under Order 11 of CPC for necessary interrogatories, with the directive that the Trial Court must implement the mandate of the Rajnesh vs. Neha judgment.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The court emphasized the importance of following the guidelines established for the disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings, including the use of a uniform format for affidavits and the process for seeking further information through interrogatories and relevant documents (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment clarified that parties are required to file affidavits of disclosure along with concise applications in all maintenance cases, with specified timeframes for responses, and limited opportunities for amendments or additional disclosures (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the necessity for the trial court to implement the mandated procedures for disclosure and information gathering, including the invocation of appropriate legal provisions such as Order XI of the CPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, to obtain relevant financial information (!) .
The judgment reaffirmed that the process of determining maintenance involves civil reliefs, and the relevant procedural guidelines must be strictly adhered to, especially in light of the detailed procedures outlined for disclosure and interrogatories (!) (!) .
The court directed all courts to communicate and display this judgment to ensure awareness and uniform implementation of the guidelines on affidavits of assets and liabilities across jurisdictions (!) .
The impugned order was quashed and set aside, with the court instructing the trial court to follow the mandates of the relevant guidelines and to consider necessary interrogatories as part of the evidence collection process (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores the court’s authority to modify procedural formats if necessary and to pass appropriate orders to facilitate fair determination of maintenance, ensuring that the process aligns with constitutional and legal standards (!) (!) .
The decision stresses the importance of transparency and full disclosure from both parties regarding their assets, liabilities, and income, with a clear warning against false statements, which could lead to criminal penalties (!) (!) .
If you need further clarification or specific legal advice based on these points, please let me know.
ORDER :
1. This misc. petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs:
(2) That explanation may be called from the learned court below for not following the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (Supra).”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 decided on 04.11.2020 shall be applicable in the present case, and that the petitioner is bound to disclose such information, which has been sought within the purview of the Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities for Non-Agrarian and Deponents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the said judgment, relevant portion of which reads as follows:
68. The NALSA submitted a comprehensive report dated 17.02.2020 containing suggestions from all the State Legal Service Authorities throughout the country. We find the various suggestions made by the SLSAs to be of great assistance in finalizing the Affidavit of Disclosure which can be used by the Family Courts for determining the quantum of maintenance to be paid.
69. Keeping in mind the varied landscape of the country, and the recommendations made by the SLSAs, it was submitted that a simplified Affidavit of Disclosure may be framed to expedite the process of determining the quantum of maintenance.
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 concerned 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 alongwith 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.
32 On the failure to file the Affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for mainten
AI
Affidavit of Disclosure for maintenance is required only at the interim stage, not after final adjudication, as per Apex Court guidelines.
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines for maintenance proceedings, including the filing of affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities.
The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with procedural guidelines in maintenance proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The obligation of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife is paramount, and proper income disclosure is essential for determining maintenance quantum.
Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. requires financial disclosure from both parties to ensure just outcomes, and non-compliance does not invalidate previous orders.
Courts can grant maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act while other maintenance orders exist; proper assessment of the husband's income is essential for determining just....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
