Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Telangana High Court has reaffirmed the mandatory requirement for both parties to disclose their assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.

The decision, delivered by Justice G. Radha Rani, upheld an earlier order by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal, which had remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration, underscoring the importance of adhering to Supreme Court guidelines issued in the case of ‘Rajnesh v. Neha and Another’. The court observed that “The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities…as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country.”

The case originated with the petitioner (wife) filing a Domestic Violence Case against the respondent (husband) and his family members, seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She also submitted a petition for interim maintenance and a residence order in the shared household. The trial court granted her interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month and a residence order.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the respondents appealed to the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal, who overturned the trial court’s order. The appellate judge cited the trial court's failure to consider the assets and liabilities statements filed by both parties. In response, the petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the appellate court's decision.

The central issue in this case was whether the trial court had erred in granting interim maintenance and a residence order without considering the financial disclosures of both parties. This situation highlighted the necessity of following the Supreme Court's guidelines in ‘Rajnesh v. Neha’ and ‘Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma', which mandate the disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.

After reviewing the arguments, the court supported the appellate court's decision. The High Court underscored that the trial court's omission to consider the assets and liabilities statements was a significant oversight. The court reiterated the need for judicial officers to comply with the Supreme Court guidelines to ensure fair and objective assessments in maintenance proceedings. “Filing the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned Court is a mandatory requirement and that the Court could be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded for maintenance at the interim stage only on the basis of such pleadings filed by both the parties and the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities,” the court emphasised.

The court pointed out that the trial court had neglected the financial affidavits submitted by both parties, basing its decision solely on the petitioner's affidavit, which led to the interim maintenance and residence order.

Furthermore, the court expressed concern over the widespread non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines by judicial officers and reiterated the importance of following these guidelines to ensure fairness in maintenance proceedings.

The court noted “there was no error or irregularity committed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Medchal-Malkajgiri District in remanding the matter to the trial court to decide it afresh by taking into consideration the statements and affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both the parties, which were already on record and to pass orders accordingly.”

Conclusively, the criminal revision case was dismissed and the order passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge was confirmed. Additionally, the High Court vacated the Interim Order of the trial court.