The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Rajesh Bindal, J.:— Leave granted.
As of the office report dated 30.10.2023, the respondent had declined to receive notice, hence, the service is deemed to be complete.
The appellant, a minor daughter of the respondent-father, is aggrieved of the order passed by the High Court, modifying the Family Court’s order fixing maintenance at Rs. 20,000/- per month to Rs. 7,500/- per month.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the High Court, without proper justification, reduced the maintenance amount. The appellant’s parents were married in 2008, and after their divorce in 2022, the Family Court had awarded Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance for the appellant. However, the High Court, in its order, cited the respondent’s financial distress as a reason to decrease the amount.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book.
From a perusal of the order passed by the Family Court awarding maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the appellant (minor daughter), it is evident that the court had considered the material placed before it. However, the High Court, in revision, recorded that earlier the respondent was doing private work and at present, he is financially distressed.
The manner in which maintenance payable under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or Section 125 Cr. P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by this Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Detailed guidelines were issued to streamline the grant of maintenance. The court emphasized the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings.
The High Court, in its order, failed to consider the guidelines and reasons provided by the Family Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration.
Criteria were laid down for determining the quantum of maintenance, considering the financial status and obligations of both parties. The court directed the parties to file a concise application along with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets, emphasizing the importance of responsible pleadings.
Given the facts and circumstances, and to ensure adherence to the guidelines, the Secretary General of this Court is directed to re-circulate the judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha to all Judicial Officers, the National Judicial Academy, and State Judicial Academies, for inclusion in training programs.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
In the Supreme Court of India
(Before Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.)
Aditi Alias Mithi … Appellant(s);
Versus
Jitesh Sharma … Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3446 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 11954 of 2023)
Decided on November 6, 2023
