The Court emphasized the mandatory requirement for parties in maintenance proceedings to submit affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities for effective adjudication.

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the common order passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru dated 27.01.2021 on four applications filed by the petitioner in M.C.No.3094 of 2012.

2. Heard Sri.Ashok.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Madhav Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The petition arises out of certain documents with regard to properties held by the 1st respondent/husband to be brought on record by the petitioner/wife. These are rejected on the ground that the documents were sought to be produced at a stage which was impermissible. The fact remains that the petition filed claiming maintenance or alimony, as the case would be, is still pending adjudication before the concerned Court. The Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA1, (2021) 2 SCC 324 has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

65. The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be required to file a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings, along with an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the court concerned, as a mandatory requirement. On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage.

66. The Delhi High Court in a series of judgments beginning with Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney [ Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney , 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3841 : ILR (2012) 1 Del 73] and followed in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma [ Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma , 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7627 : (2014) 214 DLT 493] (“Kusum Sharma 1”) directed that applications for maintenance under the HMA, HAMA, the DV Act, and the CrPC be accompanied with an affidavit of assets, income and expenditure as prescribed. In Kusum Sharma 2 [ Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma , 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6793 : (2015) 217 DLT 706] , the Court framed a format of affidavit of assets, income and expenditure to be filed by both parties at the threshold of a matrimonial litigation. This procedure was extended to maintenance proceedings under the Special Marriage Act and the Divorce Act, 1869. In Kusum Sharma 3 [ Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma , 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11796 : (2017) 241 DLT 252] the Delhi High Court modified the format of the affidavit, and extended it to maintenance proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. In Kusum Sharma 4 [ Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma , 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12534 : (2018) 246 DLT 1] the Court took notice that the filing of affidavits along with pleadings gave an unfair advantage to the party who files the affidavit subsequently. In this judgment, it was clarified that the affidavit must be filed simultaneously by both parties. In Kusum Sharma 5 [ Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma , 2020 SCC OnLine Del 931] the Court consolidated the format of the affidavits in the previous judgments, and directed that the same be filed in maintenance proceedings.”

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH (supra), the proceedings with regard to maintenance claimed either under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, should be on the basis of respective assets and liabilities placed before the concerned Court in the pending proceedings.

4. Therefore, the petitioner and the 1st respondent are directed to file their respective affidavits with regard to their assets and liabilities statement before the co