The judiciary must enforce compliance with its own directives to ensure timely justice in maintenance cases, as systemic delays undermine the rule of law and affect vulnerable parties.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-husband, Shri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Amicus-Curiae, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent, and perused the record.

2. The revisionist husband has preferred the instant revision, assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 19.01.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya in Case No. 172 of 2023, under section 125 Cr. P.C.

3. Both, revisionist-husband and respondent-wife, were directed to file an affidavit of Assets and Liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr,, (2021) 2 SCC 324 disclosing all sources of income.

4. At the outset, among other arguments, the learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife and the procedure adopted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, contravene the judgments in Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra) and Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, [(2023) SCC OnLine All 2684]. The learned counsel further asserted that the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court failed to adhere to the mandated procedures outlined in these judgments, thereby rendering the entire proceedings procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable.

5. The learned A.G.A. submits that the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court has not only committed contempt of its own Court by wilfully disregarding the Supreme Court's mandate in Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra), and this Court in Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi case (supra), has also undermined judicial propriety. This is against the rule of law. Learned A.G.A. further stated that both judgments were widely circulated to all Family Courts within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh to ensure compliance and awareness, still the same have not been followed.

6. This Court, in receipt of a letter dated 10.11.2023 from the Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India, in compliance with the direction dated 06.11.2023, passed by the Supreme Court, [In Criminal Appeal No.3446 of 2023, arising out of SLP Crl No.11954, titled as Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma]recirculated the Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra). It shall also be displayed on the websites of all the District Courts/Family Courts/Courts of Judicial Magistrate for awareness and implementation.

7. Accordingly, as per provision of Rule 4 (C) (10) of Chapter III of the Rules of the Court, 1952, the Administrative Committee of this Court issued a circular and a copy of Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra) and Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma case (supra) was sent to all the District Judges, Principal Judges of the Family Courts, Presiding Officers of MACTs, LARRAs, and the Commercial Courts for onward circulation amongst all the Judicial Officers working under their kind control for information and necessary compliance.

8. In the light of the foregoing discussions, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya was called upon to submit a reportabout the compliance of above-referred judgments, passed by the Supreme Court and this Court; learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya was also directed to explain as to why the mandate ofRajnesh v. Neha case (supra) and Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi case (supra) was not followed while deciding Case No. 172 of 2023, under Section 125 Cr.P.C; and was further directed to file a copy of the last 25 judgments/orders, passed in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, needless to say, the orders shall be either deciding interim maintenance or final award of maintenance through Registrar General of this Court in a sealed cover.

9. In view of this Court’s order, the learned judge submitted copies of 25 judgments. Upon perusal, the judgments were found to be satisfactory. It appears that, following this Court’s order, a sense of propriety may have prevailed upon the learned judge.

10. Parting with the facts of the instance case, this is not the first case in which this Court has noticed non-compliance with the above- referred judgments. This Cou