Maintenance orders passed in the absence of affidavits disclosing the parties' assets and liabilities are liable to be set aside.

Maintenance orders passed in the absence of affidavits disclosing the parties' assets and liabilities are liable to be set aside

In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court held that maintenance orders passed in the absence of affidavits disclosing the parties' assets and liabilities are liable to be set aside. This judgment emphasizes the importance of ensuring transparency regarding financial positions before determining maintenance amounts, especially under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Legal Points and Reasoning:

1. Mandatory Filing of Affidavits: The court emphasized that both parties in a maintenance dispute are required to file affidavits of their income, assets, and liabilities. The court referred to guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in cases like Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), which mandated the filing of detailed affidavits by both parties in matrimonial cases involving maintenance.

2. Principles of Natural Justice: Maintenance orders without affidavits violate principles of natural justice because the court may make arbitrary decisions without complete information on both parties' financial situations. For a fair assessment of the quantum of maintenance, complete financial disclosures are necessary.

3. Assessment of Financial Condition: The court stressed that the determination of maintenance must be based on a fair and equitable assessment of both parties' financial conditions. Without detailed affidavits, this assessment becomes impossible, leading to unjust outcomes.

4. Remand for Fresh Consideration: If a court passes a maintenance order without obtaining the necessary affidavits, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, with both parties required to submit their financial disclosures.

Key Facts of the Case:

1. Petitioner's Claim: The petitioner (husband) challenged the maintenance order passed by the lower court, arguing that the decision was made without considering the actual financial status of both parties, as affidavits were not submitted.

2. Respondent's Stand: The respondent (wife) had sought maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. However, the affidavit of her income, assets, and liabilities was not on record, which was crucial for determining the quantum of maintenance.

3. Trial Court's Failure: The trial court passed the maintenance order in favor of the wife without obtaining the requisite financial details from both parties.

4. High Court's Decision: The Telangana High Court set aside the trial court’s order, holding that the absence of the affidavits had resulted in an incomplete and improper consideration of the facts. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing, directing both parties to submit the required affidavits.

Conclusion:

The Telangana High Court's ruling reinforces the importance of following procedural mandates in maintenance cases. Courts must ensure full transparency in financial matters before determining maintenance to avoid unjust outcomes. The decision aligns with the Supreme Court's directions in Rajnesh v. Neha, further strengthening the procedural framework for matrimonial disputes involving maintenance.