Domestic Violence | Court Can't Direct Parties To File Affidavit Of Assets & Liabilities In Appeal Against Final Trial Court Judgment: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court held recently that the appellate court cannot direct parties to file affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in proceedings challenging final judgment of the trial court in a domestic violence case.

Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh clarified that such affidavits are only required at the interim stage for the purpose of deciding interim maintenance.

“filing of affidavit of assets and liabilities would amount to bringing in new material which will have to be tested on the touchstone of evidence which will not be permissible at the appellate stage after final adjudication. At the appellate stage, where challenge is to the final judgment, as opposed to an appeal against an order of interim maintenance, in my view, upon reading of the decision of Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the direction of filing of affidavit of disclosure cannot be said to apply inasmuch as at the time of final determination, there is material available before the Trial Court supported by evidence on the basis of which rights of the parties have been determined”, the court stated.

The court allowed two writ petitions filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws challenging orders dated December 8, 2023, passed by the sessions court. The sessions court had which directed the parties to file affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities as per the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha.

Initially, the petitioner-wife filed an application seeking various reliefs under the DV Act, which was adjudicated by the trial Court. The trial Court's judgment, dated February 18, 2020, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance and compensation to the petitioner-wife. Subsequently, the husband filed an appeal challenging this judgment. He also filed an application seeking direction to the wife to file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, citing the Rajnesh v. Neha case.

The wife opposed this application, arguing that it was a delay tactic and contended that such affidavits were only necessary at the interim maintenance stage, not after the DV application had been adjudicated. However, the Sessions Court relied on the Rajnesh v. Neha, stating that as the appeal was a continuation of the proceedings, the direction applied at the appellate stage as well.

Thus, the wife filed the present petition challenging the session court order.

The court noted that the affidavit of assets and liabilities was directed to be filed at the appellate stage after the final adjudication of the DV application by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

The court analysed the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Rajnesh v. Neha case, and emphasized that the purpose of filing such affidavits was to assist the court in making a prima facie assessment of the quantum of maintenance at the interim stage, to avoid guesswork based on limited pleadings.

The court concluded that the directive to file affidavits of disclosure was intended for the interim maintenance stage and was not applicable to appellate proceedings challenging final judgments under the DV Act. It highlighted that at the appellate stage, there was already material available before the Trial Court supported by evidence, upon which the rights of the parties had been determined.

The HC noted that there had been a final adjudication of the dispute by the Metropolitan Magistrate, with evidence presented by both parties. It held that the sessions court had misinterpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, applying the directive on filing affidavits in all maintenance proceedings including pending cases out of context.

“The filing of Affidavit of Disclosure in all pending proceedings cannot be recited as a mantra regardless of the stage of the proceedings. The effect of directing the filing of Affidavit of Disclosures in appellate proceedings challenging the final judgment in DV proceedings will have the detrimental impact of re-adjudicating the issues which are concluded by the Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence”, the HC observed.

Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned orders, directing the sessions court to decide the appeals on their merits in accordance with the law.

Case no. – Writ Petition (ST) No. 1913 of 2024

Case Title – ABC v. XYZ