The absence of affidavits of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings violates Supreme Court guidelines, necessitating their submission for fair assessment.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, Haryana whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife (herein) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of maintenance was allowed as follows:

“5, For the foregoing reasons, recorded in light of the cumulative effect of the circumstances, the application seeking interim maintenance allowance is hereby allowed and the respondent is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month to his petitioner-wife towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application till final disposal of the present petition on merits. Besides above, respondent is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- (rupees five thousand five hundred only) as of litigation expenses to the petitioners. Accordingly, the application for interim maintenance in hand stands disposed off in the above terms.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause and has intentionally refrained from joining the company of the petitioner. It has been further iterated that the Family Court has erroneously allowed the application of the respondent for interim maintenance based on unsubstantiated grounds. The Family Court has relied upon photographs of a dairy farm and buffaloes produced by the respondent despite the absence of any documentary evidence linking the petitioner to the said dairy farm. Furthermore, the respondent has failed to provide any concrete proof, such as documentary evidence, to establish the petitioner’s financial condition, ownership of movable or immovable property or actual income. Learned counsel asserts that it is the respondent who has left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and he has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar. It has been further argued that the Family Court has overlooked the fact that it is the conduct of the respondent that led to the breakdown of the marriage. Learned counsel has highlighted that the petitioner has supported the respondent in her further studies by getting her admitted to a coaching institute which emphasize his efforts to sustain the marriage. It is, thus, pleaded that the interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- granted by the learned Family Court is illegal and liable to be set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Family Court has rightly determined the quantum of maintenance based on the calculation of the income of the petitioner and hence no interference is called for in the impugned order. According to him, the petitioner and his family members, used to treat the respondent with mental as well as physical cruelty in order to get their illegal demands of dowry and ultimately they had ousted the respondent from her matrimonial home without any reasonable and justifiable cause. Thus, it has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

5. During the course of hearing, it has transpired that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Family Court without seeking, from the rival parties, the affidavit(s) of assets and liabilities in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, 2021(2) SCC 324.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aditi @ Mithi vs. Jitesh Sharma, 2023 INSC 981; relevant whereof reads as under: -

“8. The manner in which maintenance payable under Section 24 of the Hindu Mariage Act, 1955 or Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by this Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Detailed g