Judges Not Following Guidelines On Maintenance: Supreme Court Directs To Circulate 'Rajnesh v. Neha' Judgment To All Judicial Officers
The Supreme Court on Monday (06.11.2023) observed that the detailed guidelines issued by it in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32 regarding the payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters is not being followed in many cases. Accordingly, the Apex Court has issued a direction for a copy of the judgment containing guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant...
The Supreme Court on Monday (06.11.2023) observed that the detailed guidelines issued by it in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32 regarding the payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters is not being followed in many cases. Accordingly, the Apex Court has issued a direction for a copy of the judgment containing guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance, to be re-circulated to judicial officers in all High Courts across the country.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal passed the said direction while dealing with an appeal against a ‘cryptic’ High Court order that had modified a well reasoned order of the Family Court by reducing the maintenance to be given to a minor daughter by her father, from Rs. 20,000 per month to Rs. 7,000 per month.
“Considering the facts of the case in hand and the other similar cases coming across before this Court not adhering to the guidelines given in Rajnesh’s case (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate the aforesaid judgment not only to all the Judicial Officers through the High Courts concerned but also to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during the training programmes as well. Ordered accordingly” the Court ordered.
In 2020, in the celebrated judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha, the Apex Court had issued detailed guidelines on the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance.The Court had also set out criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance was to be awarded, how to enforce orders of maintenance and the fixing of payment of interim maintenance.
The Court in the said case had noted that in maintenance proceedings the wife tends to exaggerate her needs and the husband tends to conceal his actual income and hence had also prescribed a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in such proceedings.
However, in the present case, the Court noted that it was clear that the said guidelines had not been heeded to. The Court said that this was a common pattern and that non compliance of the guidelines, was leading to more litigation in the appellate courts.
“The case in hand is not in isolation. Even after pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is still coming across number of cases decided by the courts below fixing maintenance, either interim or final, without their being any affidavit on record filed by the parties. Apparently, the officers concerned have failed to take notice of the guidelines issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance. Comprehensive guidelines were issued pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among courts when concurrent remedies for grant of maintenance are available under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded, enforcement of orders of maintenance including fixing payment of interim maintenance. As a result, the litigation which should close at the trial level is taken up to this Court and the parties are forced to litigate,” the Apex Court said.
In the present case, the Court observed that the basic object in such proceedings was welfare of the child. The Court observed that the High Court had reduced the maintenance amount from ₹20,000/- to ₹7,500/- per month, by merely noting that the father used to be in business and was currently in financial distress. The High Court modified the order despite detailed reasoning given by the Family Court, the Apex Court observed.
“The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and is bereft of reasons” the Apex Court said, while remitting the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Case Title: ADITI ALIAS MITHI V. JITESH SHARMA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 963