Point of Law: Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that with regard to payment of interim maintenance, affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Annexures I, II and III alongwith judgment as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings including pending proceedings before Courts mentioned.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, H.P., dated 25.03.2021, which reads as under:­

“It is stated by the respondent present in the Court that he is getting pension of Rs.14,000/­ per month, as he retired from Army in the year 2019. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the averments made by the respondent in the reply, the Court is of the opinion that Rs.2,000/­ per month is sufficient as interim maintenance to the petitioner. Hence, he petitioner is awarded with interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/­ per month from February, 2019 onwards. The application for interim maintenance disposed of accordingly. Papers of this application be tagged with main petition after due completion.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that an application has been preferred under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the respondent against the petitioner, for grant of maintenance allowance. The respondent/applicant is father of the petitioner. During the pendency of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in terms of the impugned order, learned Court below has awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/­ per month from February, 2019 onwards as interim maintenance in favour of father in view of the fact that the income of the son was Rs.14,000/­ per month in terms of the pension being received by him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the impugned order, learned Court below has erred in ignoring the mandate as has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajneesh Versus Neha and another, (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, in terms whereof, before the payment of interim maintenance, the affidavits of disclosure of Assets and Liabilities have to be mandatorily filed by both the parties in all the maintenance proceedings inconsonance with the enclosures I, II and III of the judgment. Learned counsel argued that the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court was pronounced on 04.11.2020. In terms of para­134 of the same, Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed the Secretary General of Supreme Court of India to communicate the judgment to the Registrars of all the High Courts, who in turn were directed to circulate the judgments to all the District Courts in the States and it was further ordered that the judgment shall be displayed on the Website of all the District Courts/Family Courts/Courts of Judicial Magistrate for awareness and implementation. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order having been passed on 25.03.2021 ought to have had complied with the judgment of Hon’ble supreme Court and no interim maintenance could have been awarded without calling upon the parties to submit the affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities and as in the present case, learned Family Court failed to adhere to the said principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that taking into consideration the fact that only an amount of Rs.2,000/­ has been awarded by learned Court below as interim maintenance to the father, who presently happens to be around seventy two years old, the order calls for no interference, as the petitioner has failed to display as to how any prejudice has been caused to him by the non filing of the affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, because it is not the case of the petitioner herein that the father was having sufficient means to maintain himself. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prejudice indeed has been caused to the petitioner, because the petitioner had disclosed before learned Family Court the assets of his fath