Affidavit acceptance for justice outweighs delay, with cost implications due to procedural discrepancies.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 05^th day of February, 2026 The petitioners in M.C.No.58/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the learned Magistrate to accept Ext.P4 Assets and Liabilities affidavit filed by the petitioners, and to decide the M.C.

after considering the above affidavit.

2. The above M.C. was filed by the petitioners under Section

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (for short 'the DV Act') claiming various reliefs including maintenance.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has not posted the case for filing the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities and hence the petitioners omitted to file such an affidavit in time. When she came to know about the non- filing of the affidavit, she filed the same as Ext.P4 in November, 2025, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate, on the ground that it was filed belatedly. Therefore, she prays for a direction to the learned Magistrate to accept the above affidavit.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondents on the ground that after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh V. Neha and Another [2021 (2) SCC 324] the petitioners were supposed to file the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities along with the application for interim maintenance. According to the learned counsel, even the respondents have to file the affidavit within a period of four weeks and as such the affidavit filed by the petitioners in November, 2025 in an MC of the year 2016 is highly belated, that too after the evidence of both sides was concluded and the case was posted for final arguments. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the petition.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the decision in Rajnesh (Supra) came only in the year 2021 and as such the guidelines laid down in the above decision regarding the time for filing the affidavit could not be strictly applied in the present case which was filed in the year 2016. It is true that the present M.C was filed in the year 2016 while the decision in Rajnesh (supra) came in the year 2021. In the decision in Rajnesh (supra), there is direction for filing the affidavit in pending cases also.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate has not specifically posted the case for filing the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. The learned counsel for the respondents is not sure about the correctness of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents filed the affidavit only before September, 2005, before the respondent was cross examined. Since the respondents filed the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities just before September, 2025 it can not be held that the petitioners' affidavit in November, 2025 is too belated.

7. It is true that there is some delay in filing the affidavit by the petitioners as it came only after the conclusion of the evidence. Even then, for a just decision in the case, acceptance of the above affidavit is necessary. However, for the delay and the consequent inconvenience caused to the respondents, reasonable cost is to be paid. Therefore, I hold that this petition can be allowed subject to payment of a reasonable cost to the respondents.

8. Considering the facts, I hold that a cost of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand only) will be a reasonable cost in this case.

9. In the result, this Original Petition is allowed on condition that the petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousan