HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 211 of 2024

27 October, 2025

Rajesh Negi …………….Appellant

Versus

Mirdul Negi ……………Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Rajesh Negi-appellant is present in person.

Ms. Gurbani Singh, learned counsel for respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal is filed against the order

dated 15.03.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Dehradun in Original Suit No. 515 of 2023 Rajesh Negi Vs. Mirdul Negi (“the case”). By the impugned order, the application filed by respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay ₹30,000/- as

time litigation expenses.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The appellant appears in person. He submits that the respondent is not entitled to any monetary relief from him. It is submitted that twice the respondent had

been denied maintenance in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The appellant further submits that the respondent is working, but she has concealed her source of income, her employment and status etc. It is argued that respondent was required to file an affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, which she has not filed. It is argued that despite this, the court below passed the impugned order, which according to the appellant violates the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra).

4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities has not been filed by the respondent. She submits that, in fact, the parties have a minor child, and the appellant has been paying a sum of ₹8,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the said child. It has been rebutted by the appellant saying that he is paying ₹15,000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor child.

5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that, in fact, the respondent was required to file an affidavit of disclosure of her assets and liabilities in terms of the judgment in the case of Rajnesh (Supra), which she has not filed. The court below in the impugned order itself observed that the respondent has been working but she has concealed this fact, which is objectionable.

6. In the case of Rajnesh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 72.1(a) has observed that “the affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country”. Further, in paragraph 72.3(c), it was observed that in case of delay or failure in filing such affidavit, the court may consider striking off the defence.

7. In the present case, the respondent was directed to file an affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the respondent to comply with the said direction. In case of her failure to do so, the court below should have taken appropriate action as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra).

8. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, the matter deserves to be remitted to the court below with a direction to the respondent to file an affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities in accordance with the format prescribed in the judgment of Rajnesh (Supra).

9. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The respondent is directed to file her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in accordance with annexures as given in th