Ensure Filing Of Necessary Affidavit Of Assets & Liabilities In Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Directs Trial Courts

In Rajnesh (Supa), the Apex Court had directed a uniform format of affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings. It was also directed that the format may be modified by the Court concerned if the exigencies of a case require the same.

The Criminal Revision before the High Court was filed by the wife against the impugned order passed under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the Court below from Rs 20,000 to Rs 75,000per month from the date of filing of the application.

The Single Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar-II ordered, “Let a copy of this judgment be circulated amongst all Judicial Officers of State of U.P. through Registrar (compliance) to ensure that the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha be complied in its letter and spirit, as affidavits to be filed in compliance of Apex Court’s direction is not a mere formality. The trial Courts must be alive to be objects and reasons as well as spirit behind law of maintenance as provided under Section 125 Cr.P.C./ 144 of BNSS, as noted in this judgment. The learned trial Courts must make an endevour to ensure filing of all necessary documents, which are clearly indicated in prescribed proforma of Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra).”

Advocate S.P.S. Chauhan represented the Revisionist, while Advocate Abhinav Singh represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

The marriage of the opposite party (husband) with the revisionist wife was his second marriage, and on demand of her in-laws, the parents of the woman spent Rs 12 lakh in the marriage and gave all household items. It was alleged that the husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and were demanding additional dowry. When the demand for additional dowry was not fulfilled, they allegedly started mentally and physically harassing her. It was further alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial house during her pregnancy period, on account of the illicit relationship of the husband with some other lady. A child (second revisionist) was born out of wedlock at the parental house of the revisionist. A case was registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the Judicial Magistrate summoned the husband and his parents to face trial. They are currently on bail.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 125 of the CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision, so that some suitable arrangement could be made by the Court and she could sustain herself and her children.

The High Court clarified that it is the bounden duty of a Trial Court to ensure that a party should not file an evasive affidavit just to avoid his liability to pay maintenance either to his wife/ child or his parents. The Courts are required to be vigilant to find out such attempts, and when detected, appropriate steps, including invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as well as initiating action for prosecution under Sections 199/191 & 193 or 209, may also be initiated. “It is thus a bounden duty of a trial court to ensure compliance of directions issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh’s case (supra) in letter and spirit”, it added.

The Bench noted that the husband had made incorrect declarations regarding the dependants, as his father was a pensioner. In his affidavit, he had admitted that he is an income taxpayer; however, he had not filed his income tax return as indicated in the prescribed proforma of the affidavit. The husband (opposite party) had admitted himself to be a salaried person getting a salary of Rs 1,25,000 per month in hand, however he had not annexed requisite latest salary certificate, pay slip and bank account statement in which he was receiving his salary, which were required to be filed as per sub para 5, 6, 7 and 9 of para ‘F’ of Uniform Proforma of Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities.

The Bench thus stated, “Meaning thereby, that opposite party no. 2 has intentionally concealed the material documents showing his actual income, from the trial Court. The opposite party no. 2 has also intentionally concealed his latest salary certificate as well as salary slip with an objective that the trial Court could not find out the amount of actual deductions from his gross salary, because those deductions could have been much higher than the requisite statutory deductions. The approach of trial Court in receiving and placing reliance on opposite party no. 2’s affidavit, while writing down the judgment seems to be very casual and lackadaisical in nature.”

The Bench was of the view that the husband, with some legal advice, had shown his parents and sister as dependent upon him, just to deny the lawful right of the revisionists to receive maintenance from him. The Bench, thus, modified the impugned judgment directing the husband to pay Rs 47,500 (Rs. 30,000 for the wife + Rs 17,500 for the son) per month in favour of the wife and child from the date of the impugned judgment, i.e. December 1, 2023 and Rs 34,000 from the date of filing of the application to the date of judgment i.e. December 1, 2023.

Allowing the wife’s criminal revision, the Bench directed the Trial Courts to ensure filing of all necessary documents, which are indicated in prescribed proforma of Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. “A copy of this judgment be sent to Director, JTRI for sensitizing the judicial officer on this issue in the light of direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha as well as observation made in this judgment”, it further directed.

Cause Title: A v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:115457)

Appearance

Revisionist: Advocates S.P.S. Chauhan, Meenakshi Chauhan

Respondent: Advocate Abhinav Singh, Government Advocate Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate Vinod Kumar Upadhyay

Click here to read/download Order