Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Santosh Kumar Jaiswal – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 25862 Of 2023
Decided On : 12-03-2024
DV Act - Maintenance - 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - 125 Cr.P.C, 24 of Hindu Marriage Act - 20 of D.V. Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act for quashing orders related to maintenance. The court analyzed the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and emphasized the importance of filing an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 20 of the D.V. Act and the guidelines for awarding maintenance from the date of filing the application.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for quashing orders related to maintenance under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The applicant argued that the trial court and the revisional court failed to consider the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and did not direct the parties to file an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities. The court directed the trial court to invite the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities from the parties and to pass a fresh order for maintenance in view of the said guidelines and pursuant to filing of affidavit by the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court and the revisional court failed to consider and follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha. The court set aside the impugned order to the extent of the manner adopted by the trial court and the revisional court for granting the maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and its payment from the date of the order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the trial court and the revisional court to consider and follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, specifically regarding the filing of an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings and the awarding of maintenance from the date of filing the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of filing an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings and the guidelines for awarding maintenance from the date of filing the application as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside to the extent of the manner adopted by the trial court and the revisional court for granting the maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and its payment from the date of the order. The trial court was directed to invite the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities from the parties and to pass a fresh order for maintenance in view of the said guidelines and pursuant to filing of affidavit by the parties.
Key Points: - The court must direct parties to file an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings (!) (!) (!) . - Maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing the application, not from the date of the order (!) (!) (!) . - Courts are duty-bound to implement the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (!) (!) (!) . - The applicant failed to file an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, affecting the court's ability to assess financial capacity (!) (!) . - The trial and revisional courts erred by not following the Apex Court guidelines (!) (!) . - Section 20 of the D.V. Act provides for monetary relief including maintenance, loss of earnings, and medical expenses (!) (!) . - The court may order lump sum or periodic payments as maintenance (!) . - Parties are directed to appear for fresh hearing and disposal of the matter (!) (!) . - The Registrar is directed to communicate the order to ensure compliance (!) . - The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of after addressing the maintenance issues (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mohd. Naushad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and AGA for the State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.04.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2019 (Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 03.09.2019 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Kushinagar in Case No. 236 of 2017 (Vineeta Jaiswal Vs. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal) under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act’ )
4. Opposite party no. 2, Vineeta Jaiswal moved an application before the learned trial Court under Section 12 of D.V. Act on the following grounds:-
4.1 That her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 29.01.2007 according to the Hindu rituals. Her parents had given sufficient jewellery and articles in her marriage.
4.2 Her husband, Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, brother-in-law Krishna Jaiswal (Jeth), sister-in-law Poonam Jaiswal (Jethani) made a demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash from her.
4.3 She informed his parents and her brother about this demand. They explained and tried to convince her in-laws that they were not in a position to fulfil their demand. Thereafter, her in-laws started harassing her physically and mentally for meeting such demand. She was not given proper food.
4.4 On 17.03.2011, her brother freed her from captivity of her in-laws. As a result of cruelty caused by her in-laws, she suffered miscarriage. She remained under mental stress due to ill treatment given by her in-laws. She has a female child, Pari, aged 7 years living with her.
4.5 She is residing in her maternal home since 2011 and has no source of income for her livelihood. Her in-laws are not permitting her to live with them. She is not being paid any maintenance. She tried to live with her in-laws but she was not permitted. Last time she visited her in-laws on 22.03.2014 but they did not permit her to enter in the house.
4.6 Her husband is financially sound. He is running a wholesale provision store in the name and style of ‘Ashish Provision Store’. He is earning around Rs. 2,00,000/- per month from his business.
5. The objection filed by the applicant against the aforesaid application are not brought on record. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order mentioned the objections raised by that applicant.
6. The applicant submitted objection to the effect that the allegations made in the complaint by his wife are groundless, she filed an FIR such as crime no. 87/2011 under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant was arrested and released on bail later.
7.1 Opposite party no. 2 reached the house of the applicant, threatened him and hurled abuses upon him. The applicant lodged NCR no. 32/14 under Section 504, 506 IPC.
7.2 The applicant is a poor person and running a small provision store in a rented property. Opposite party no. 2 is running her own beauty parlour and training centre. She is earning around Rs. 30,000/- per month.
8. The Learned Magistrate vide order dated 03.09.2019 allowed the application of opposite party no. 2. Vide the impugned order an amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- for opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- for her daughter is granted from the date of the order.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred criminal appeal no. 60 of 2019 (Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Vs. State of UP and Anr.) before the Learned District Judge Kushinagar at Padrauna.
10. The Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.04.2023 dismissed the appeal.
11. Shri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a poor person. The trial Court without considering the argument of the applicant, in a routine and cursory manner, allowed the application filed by opposite party no. 2. The applicant is already paying maintenance under
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines for maintenance proceedings, including the filing of affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities.
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....
Affidavit of Disclosure for maintenance is required only at the interim stage, not after final adjudication, as per Apex Court guidelines.
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.
Quantum of monthly maintenance – Court must follow Apex Court guidelines.
A wife can seek maintenance under different statutes; non-disclosure of interim maintenance in previous proceedings cannot bar her claim.
The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not diminished by the wife's earning capacity, and proper financial disclosures are essential in maintenance proce....
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
