Maintenance order passed without the wife filing a statement of assets and liabilities is not illegal

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai 05 Feb 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a maintenance order passed without the wife filing a statement of assets and liabilities is not illegal,

In a notable judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a maintenance order passed without the wife filing a statement of assets and liabilities is not illegal, particularly when the husband has not specifically denied the income claimed by the wife. This decision emphasizes that procedural lapses like the absence of affidavits may not always invalidate a maintenance order, especially when there is no specific dispute regarding the wife’s financial claim

Legal Points and Reasoning:

1. Non-denial of Income: The court observed that when the husband does not specifically deny the income or financial position claimed by the wife, there is no need for a detailed inquiry into her assets and liabilities. In such cases, the court can presume the correctness of the wife’s claim regarding her income.

2. Procedural Lapse Not Fatal: The court highlighted that while filing affidavits of assets and liabilities is crucial for transparency and fairness, the absence of these documents does not automatically render a maintenance order illegal. The court has discretion to decide based on the available evidence, especially if the facts concerning income and financial status are not in dispute.

3. Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC: Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are meant to be summary in nature, and strict procedural compliance is not always mandatory. The primary objective is to provide speedy relief to the wife and children.

4. Purpose of Maintenance Law: The court reiterated that the purpose of maintenance laws is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. If the wife is unable to sustain herself and the husband has the means to support her, the court can order maintenance based on the available facts, even in the absence of formal affidavits.

5. No Prejudice to Husband: The court noted that if the husband has not suffered any prejudice due to the non-filing of affidavits, and there is no dispute regarding the financial status, the maintenance order should not be disturbed. The focus should be on ensuring that justice is served, rather than adhering strictly to procedural requirements.

Key Facts of the Case:

1. Petitioner's Claim (Husband): The husband challenged the maintenance order passed by the lower court, contending that the wife did not file an affidavit disclosing her income, assets, and liabilities, which was a procedural requirement as per Rajnesh v. Neha (2020).

2. Respondent's Stand (Wife): The wife sought maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming that she had no independent source of income and that the husband was well-off. The husband did not specifically dispute her claims regarding her income.

3. Trial Court's Order: The trial court passed an order directing the husband to pay maintenance, despite the wife not filing a formal affidavit regarding her financial status.

4. High Court’s Judgment: The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the trial court’s order, holding that since the husband had not specifically denied the wife’s claims regarding her financial condition, the absence of the affidavit was not fatal to the case. The court ruled that the maintenance order was valid, considering the summary nature of the proceedings and the need to provide relief to the wife.

Conclusion:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision underscores the balance between procedural compliance and the need for swift justice in maintenance cases. While the filing of affidavits regarding assets and liabilities is important for transparency, the court clarified that it is not an absolute requirement in every case. If the husband does not specifically challenge the wife’s financial claims, the court can rely on the available facts to pass a maintenance order. This ruling reflects a pragmatic approach to maintenance disputes, focusing on ensuring justice rather than strict adherence to procedural formalities.