Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Kerala High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order for Non-Compliance with Supreme Court’s Asset Disclosure Mandate

20 March 2025 1:36 PM

By: sayum


In a significant ruling on March 14, 2025, the Kerala High Court set aside an interim maintenance order granted by the Family Court, Kollam, in the case of O.P.(Crl.) No. 104 of 2025. The High Court held that the Family Court’s failure to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandatory guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324]—which require both parties in maintenance proceedings to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities—made the order legally unsustainable. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication, directing strict compliance with the prescribed guidelines.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent, challenged an interim maintenance order issued by the Family Court, Kollam, in M.C. No. 115/2019, granting Rs. 5,000 per month each to the wife and child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

The petitioner contended that the Family Court granted interim maintenance without insisting on the mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities from both parties, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha. The petitioner sought to have the order set aside on the grounds of procedural non-compliance.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Family Court had sufficient material on record to determine maintenance and that failure to file the affidavit should not render the order invalid.

Legal Issues at Hand and Court Observations

  1. Mandatory Requirement of Financial Disclosure in Maintenance Cases

    • The High Court reiterated that in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court prescribed a uniform format for financial disclosure affidavits to prevent concealment of income and ensure fairness in maintenance proceedings.

    • The Court also referred to Aditi alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451], where the Supreme Court expressed concern that many courts were failing to enforce these disclosure requirements.

    • The guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha were declared mandatory and binding on all courts dealing with maintenance cases across India.

  2. Effect of Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines

    • The Family Court, Kollam, granted maintenance without requiring either party to file the mandated affidavit, making its order legally untenable.

    • The High Court clarified that even if the petitioner (husband) failed to submit his affidavit, this did not absolve the respondent (wife) from her obligation to disclose her financial status before seeking maintenance.

Details of the Judgment

The Kerala High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, held as follows:

  • “Since neither party filed the disclosure affidavit, the Family Court’s order is legally unsustainable and must be set aside.”

  • The case is remitted back to the Family Court for reconsideration, strictly ensuring compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines.

  • The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities within 10 days from the date of appearance before the Family Court.

  • If the petitioner fails to file the affidavit, the Family Court may decide the matter based on the available records and the affidavit filed by the respondent.

  • All Family Courts in Kerala are directed to mandatorily enforce the requirement of financial disclosure before passing maintenance orders.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s mandate that maintenance proceedings must adhere to strict financial disclosure norms. By setting aside the Family Court’s interim maintenance order, the High Court has emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in maintenance cases.

This decision serves as a reminder to all courts across India to ensure strict compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha and related precedents, thereby promoting judicial consistency and fairness in maintenance adjudication.

Date of Decision: March 14, 2025

Latest Legal News