IMPORTANT POINT
Maintenance – It is mandatory for Petitioner-Applicant to file disclosure affidavit at the time of bringing proceeding for maintenance.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.—This Revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2023 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Khurda in Criminal Petition No.431 of 2017 directing the Petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month each to OP1-wife and OP2-son w.e.f. 01.12.2017 in an application U/S. 125 of CrPC.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner without disputing the facts and relationship between the parties submits that admittedly the monthly salary of the Petitioner is Rs.42,000/-, but he is directed to pay Rs. 41,000/- per month in three different proceedings; firstly, Rs.20,000/- per month in a proceeding U/S.12 of the PWDV Act, secondly, Rs.1,000/- in a proceeding U/S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and thirdly, Rs.20,000/- in this proceeding U/S. 125 of the CrPC. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that admittedly neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha and another; (2021) 2 SCC 324 which is the mandatory requirement for deciding application for maintenance under different provisions of law and although the Petitioner-husband has not filed such disclosure affidavit, but it is the mandatory requirement of the law as held in Rajnesh (supra). Further, Mr. Mishra submits that since the salary of the Petitioner-husband in the year 2017 was admittedly Rs.10,300/, how he can be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month w.e.f 01.12.2017, but the learned trial Court has committed error in this aspect while passing the impugned order. On the above submissions, Mr.Mishra prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgment.

2.1. On the contrary, Mr. Abhinash Swain, learned counsel for the OPs by taking this Court through the observation of the learned trial Court made at paragraph-12 submits that although the parties have not filed disclosure affidavit, but the learned trial Court has taken relevant materials on record to pass the impugned judgment.

3. After having considered the rival submissions upon going through the materials placed on record, it appears that neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit as mandated in Rajnesh (supra), but facts remain that the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra) has issued a slew of directions in the form of guidelines making it mandatory for the Petitioner-Applicant to file disclosure affidavit at the time of bringing a proceeding for maintenance which is forthcoming from the following observation made by the Apex Court in paragraphs-72.2 and 72.3 which reads as under:-

“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 along with 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 willful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings (Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain, MANU/ SCOR/ 21339/ 2019: (2020) 17 SCC 822). On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record.”

In the above premises, viewing what should be the consequence for non-filing of disclosure affidavits which is mandatory in nature after the decision in Rajnesh (supra), this Court considers it useful to refer to the decision in Aditi Vrs. Jitesh Sharma; (2023) SCC Online SC 1451, wherein the Apex Court at paragraphs-14 & 15 has held thus:-

“14.