Telangana High Court Reiterates Mandatory Disclosure Of Assets & Liabilities By Both Sides In Maintenance Cases, Calls For Strict Adherence To SC Guidelines
The Telangana High Court recently upheld an order by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (appellate court) in a domestic violence case, highlighting the mandatory requirement for both parties to disclose their assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.“The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal observed that though the assets and liabilities statement of...
The Telangana High Court recently upheld an order by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (appellate court) in a domestic violence case, highlighting the mandatory requirement for both parties to disclose their assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.
“The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal observed that though the assets and liabilities statement of respondent No.1 was on record by the date of passing the order, in spite of the same, it was not considered by the trial court making the order erroneous, since the statement would help the Court in deciding the actual amount of relief that was entitled and claimed,” the Bench observed.
The order was passed by Dr. Justice G. Radha Rani in a Criminal Revision petition. The Bench has heavily relied on the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another.
Background:
The petitioner (wife) challenged the appellate court's decision to set aside an interim maintenance and residence order granted to her by the trial court. The petitioner argued that the appellate court's order was mechanically passed and that the trial court's order was compliant with the Domestic Violence Act. Conversely, the respondent (husband) argued that the appellate court's decision was correct, as the trial court failed to consider the assets and liabilities statements filed by both parties.
The High Court, upon reviewing the case, concurred with the appellate court's findings. It emphasized that the trial court's failure to consider the assets and liabilities statements while granting interim maintenance was a significant error, as this disclosure is mandatory as per the Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha. The High Court stressed the importance of adhering to these guidelines, especially in light of repeated instances where judicial officers have not complied with them.
“The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again is giving directions to all the Judicial Officers all over the country to follow the guidelines given by it in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (cited supra), but still the Judicial Officers were not complying with the said guidelines. As such, this Court considers that there was no error or irregularity committed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Medchal-Malkajgiri District in remanding the matter to the trial court to decide it afresh by taking into consideration the statements and affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both the parties, which were already on record and to pass orders accordingly," the Court stated.
The court expressed concern over the non-compliance of Supreme Court guidelines by judicial officers across the country. It reiterated the necessity for all judicial officers to follow the guidelines established in Rajnesh v. Neha and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma to ensure fair and objective assessment in maintenance proceedings.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the appellate court's order.
Case title: Smt. N. Pravallika vs M. Abhishek Goud
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 95
Case number: CRLRC 129/2024
Counsel for petitioner: Dr. GONU VASANTH KUMAR
Counsel for respondents: NOOTY VASISHTA VENKATESWARLU