ORDER

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.5059/2024 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Application is accordingly disposed of.

CRL.M.C.1283/2024, CRL.M.A.5058/2024 1. A petition under Section 482 read with 483 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging order dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned Family Court, South West, Dwarka, New Delhi whereby respondent No.1 (wife) has been permitted to file fresh income affidavit in accordance with judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears on advance notice.

3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 11.12.2019. A petition for divorce was preferred by the petitioner at Family Court at Ahemdabad.

On the other hand, a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was preferred on behalf of the respondent wife before Family Court at Aligarh, which has been transferred to Delhi. In the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 filed an income asset affidavit, wherein petitioner took a stand regarding furnishing of incorrect information by respondent. Further, the reply to the interrogatories is stated to have not been filed by respondent No.1. An application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is also stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the Family Court.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 realised that her falsehood and suppression has been discovered and sought to amend the income and expenditure affidavit. The learned Family Court is stated to have allowed respondent No.1 to file the income and expenditure affidavit vide order dated 10.04.2023 which was challenged by the petitioner in CRL.M.C.3572/2023.The High Court vide order dated 23.05.2023 set aside the order dated 10.04.2023 and allowed the petitioner to file objections on amendment application and decide the same before proceeding further. The learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 16.01.2024 allowed respondent No.1 to file fresh income and expenditure affidavit on the ground that income and expenditure affidavit submitted is not as per the format of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier affidavit submitted by respondent No.1 in Hindi is also as per the format of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (supra), and the filing of fresh income asset affidavit incorporates amended details which would frustrate the pending application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., preferred on behalf of the petitioner 6. On the other hand, the order passed by the learned Family Court is supported on behalf of respondents.

7. A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Court reflects that it was pleaded on behalf of respondent No.1 that inadvertently necessary facts could not be added in the previous affidavit and the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the original application. The proposed amendment was also stated to be necessary since it went to the root of the issue. After taking into consideration the objections/contentions raised by the petitioner, learned Trial Court observed that the earlier affidavit filed by the parties on record cannot be taken off record and while considering the dispute on any facts/figures, the Court can consider the earlier affidavit placed on record. It was further observed that the respondent could not be stopped from filing proper income affidavit as observed in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (supra) and accordingly allowed the fresh filing of the affidavit. 8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.

The maintenance granted to the wife is as a measure of social justice and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is with an objective to protect women and children from vagrancy and destitution. The Family Courts have been established for adoptin