The Allahabad High Court has set aside an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, directing both parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities before the court considers the maintenance application. The Court emphasized adherence to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another to ensure fair and transparent adjudication of maintenance claims under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The revision petition arises from an application filed by Smt. Subha Mishra under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, seeking interim maintenance from her husband, Gyanendra Mishra. The Family Court had passed an order on 21.08.2024 granting interim maintenance, which the revisionist challenged before the High Court.
Key Facts
- The parties are married and have been living separately since the dispute arose.
- The revisionist filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in Case No.2265 of 2021 before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar.
- The Family Court passed an order on 21.08.2024 granting interim maintenance without requiring the parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities.
- The revisionist challenged the order before the High Court, contending that the Family Court erred in not following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another.
Procedural History
- Case No.2265 of 2021: Original application filed by the revisionist before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar.
- 21.08.2024: Family Court passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance.
- Criminal Revision No. 497 of 2026: Revision petition filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the Family Court's order.
- 16.07.2026: High Court disposed of the revision petition with directions.
Relief Sought
The revisionist sought the setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Family Court and a direction to the court to consider the maintenance application afresh after filing of affidavits by both parties.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Family Court, while adjudicating an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, is required to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, which mandates the filing of affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities by both parties before considering the grant of interim maintenance.
Arguments Presented
For the Revisionist
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Family Court erred in passing the impugned order without requiring the parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities. The counsel relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another to argue that such affidavits are essential for a fair and transparent adjudication of maintenance claims.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the respondent, including the State and the opposite party, did not oppose the prayer for setting aside the impugned order. Both parties jointly submitted that they would file their respective affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities within the stipulated time, and the Family Court should consider the same before passing any order on the interim maintenance application.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, which laid down comprehensive guidelines for the adjudication of maintenance applications under Section 125 CrPC. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had emphasized the necessity of filing affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities by both parties to ensure fairness and transparency in the adjudication process.
"The Court observed that the Family Court ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another before passing the impugned order. The affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities are crucial for determining the quantum of maintenance and ensuring that the order is just and equitable."
The High Court also considered the joint submission of the parties that they would file the requisite affidavits within the stipulated time. The Court acknowledged that adherence to the Supreme Court's guidelines would facilitate a fair adjudication of the maintenance application.
The Verdict
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Family Court. The Court directed both parties to file their respective affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities within 15 days from the date of the order. The Family Court was directed to consider the affidavits and pass an order on the interim maintenance application within 30 days from the date of compliance. The Family Court was also directed to finally adjudicate the application under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS within six months from the date of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Adherence to Rajnesh Guidelines Is Mandatory
- Family Courts must mandatorily require parties to file affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities before considering interim maintenance applications.
- Non-compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another may result in the setting aside of the impugned order.
Procedural Compliance Ensures Fairness
- The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance in maintenance adjudication.
- Affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities are essential for determining the quantum of maintenance and ensuring that the order is just and equitable.
Expeditious Disposal of Maintenance Applications
- Family Courts are now directed to dispose of maintenance applications expeditiously, preferably within six months.
- Interim maintenance orders must be passed only after considering the affidavits filed by the parties.
