Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Sets Aside “Cryptic” High Court Order, Demands Detailed Reasoning in Child Maintenance Reduction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a High Court ruling that had reduced the monthly maintenance for a minor child, terming the decision as “cryptic” and lacking in necessary detail. The Apex Court’s bench, consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, directed the High Court to reassess the case, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the facts and proper application of the legal principles concerning maintenance awards.

The appellant, a minor daughter represented by her mother, had challenged the High Court’s order that reduced her maintenance from ₹20,000 to ₹7,500 per month. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s decision failed to consider the established guidelines for determining maintenance, leading to an insufficient ruling. “The manner in which maintenance payable... is to be assessed, was considered by this Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha... Detailed guidelines were issued,” the Supreme Court observed.

The Apex Court has reiterated the procedural guidelines laid down in the landmark case of Rajnesh v. Neha, which mandates a uniform format for the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in all maintenance proceedings. The court criticized the lack of adherence to these guidelines and directed the Secretary General to recirculate the judgment to ensure its implementation at all levels of the judiciary.

In the court’s ruling, it was emphatically stated that “the impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and is bereft of reasons.” The Supreme Court has sent back the case to the High Court, ordering a detailed reassessment. This move underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring the welfare of the child and the enforcement of fair and justified maintenance awards.

The recirculation of the Rajnesh v. Neha judgment is also a significant step towards streamlining the process of maintenance adjudication, highlighting the court’s proactive stance in safeguarding the interests of dependents in matrimonial disputes. The decision has sent a clear message that maintenance cases, especially those involving children, require careful scrutiny and adherence to legal protocols to ensure justice is served.

Date of Decision:  06 November  2023

ADITI ALIAS MITHI VS JITESH SHARMA

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/06-Nov-2023-Aditi-Vs-Jitesh.pdf"]

Latest Legal News