Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on November 6, 2023 directed its Secretary General to re-circulate among judicial officers for awareness and implementation its 2021 "celebrated" judgement, which laid down detailed guidelines for maintenance, including prescribing a format of affidavit on disclosure of assets and liabilities of the parties.

"Even after pronouncement of the judgment, this Court is still coming across number of cases decided by the courts below fixing maintenance, either interim or final, without their being any affidavit on record filed by the parties," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal said.

Dealing with a maintenance case, the bench considered the facts of the case at hand and pointed out the other similar cases which come across before the court not adhering to the guidelines given in the case of 'Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another' (2021).

"We deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate the judgment not only to all the judicial officers through the High Courts concerned but also to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during the training programmes as well," the bench said.

Court has also set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order which had reduced monthly maintenance amount of Rs 20,000 fixed by the trial court for the minor daughter to Rs 7,500.

In its revision order, the High Court had noted that respondent-father was doing private work and at present he is financially distressed.  "In a given case, where the earning of the wife is also good, that factor can always be considered as joint parenting is always best for upbringing of the child. The basic object is the welfare of the child," the top court's bench said.

Acting on an appeal by the daughter, the top court found the High Court's order is cryptic and is bereft of reasons, which deserves to be set aside and is liable to be remitted back for fresh consideration.

"Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of judgment of this Court (2021) in Rajnesh’s case, which was directed to be communicated... The case in hand is not in isolation," the bench said.

The court said the litigation which should close at the trial level is taken up to this Court and the parties are forced to litigate.

"Comprehensive guidelines were issued pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among courts when concurrent remedies for grant of maintenance are available under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 CrPC, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded, enforcement of orders of maintenance including fixing payment of interim maintenance," it added.

Case Title: Aditi vs. Jitesh Sharma