Topic
Bombay High Court rules that additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC must include comprehensive financial documents-IT returns, bank statements, GST filings, and asset ownership-to ensure a just maintenance order. The ruling underscores that partial disclosure defeats the purpose of fair adjudication in matrimonial disputes.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court vacated an interim maintenance order because both parties failed to disclose income and assets, violating the Supreme Court’s mandate in Rajnesh v. Neha. This ruling reinforces that financial transparency is non-negotiable in maintenance proceedings, affecting spouses seeking interim relief under BNSS and compelling family courts to enforce full disclosure before awarding any amount.
SAT ruled that minor technical omissions in financial disclosures under Regulation 33 of SEBI LODR Regulations do not warrant punitive fines if intent is absent. The decision underscores proportionality in regulatory penalties, offering relief to listed entities for genuine errors.
Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds interim maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC, clarifying that voluntary transfers and unproven income claims cannot override prima facie assessment.