The Gauhati High Court has recently annulled a directive issued by the Family Court, mandating the husband to provide his wife with interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month. This decision stems from the non-submission of asset and liability disclosure affidavits by both parties during the Family Court proceedings. Presiding over a single-judge bench, Justice Robin Phukan made the subsequent observation:
“Here in this case, having gone through the impugned order dated 31.08.2023, I find that the petitioner and also the respondent have not submitted their affidavits, disclosing the assets and liabilities in the aforementioned proceeding before the learned Court below before deciding the issue of interim maintenance as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 64 and 65 in the case of Rajnesh (supra) and also in the case of Aditi Alias Mithi (supra).”
Counsel representing the petitioner (husband) argued that the determination of interim maintenance quantum by the Family Court was solely based on the respondent’s (wife’s) petition. Despite the petitioner’s request for an adjournment to allow for the filing of objections to said petition, the Court proceeded with the hearing and issued the contested interim maintenance order on August 31, 2023.
It was further contended that as per the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021), the Family Court is obligated to procure affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities of both parties involved in the proceedings when rendering such orders. The petitioner asserted that the Family Court failed to adhere to this requirement in the present case.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s decision in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451), wherein it was established that the guidelines outlined in Rajnesh (supra) are mandatory for all courts in the adjudication of maintenance cases.
The Court noted, “Though the petitioner has sought time to file objection, the same was refused by the learned Court below. That being so, the impugned order cannot withstand the legal scrutiny, having been passed ignoring the law down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
Accordingly, the Court annulled the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Family Court, allowing both parties the opportunity to furnish affidavits disclosing their respective assets and liabilities. Subsequently, the Family Court is directed to convene a new hearing and issue requisite orders within a timeframe of one month.
