Bombay High Court
Poonam Jaidev Shroff vs Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff on 29 September, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:41160
WP.4414.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4414 OF 2025
Poonam Jaidev Shroff Petitioner
.. (Orig. Respondent)
Versus
Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff Respondent
.. (Orig. Petitioner)
....................
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Chandana
Salgaonkar, Ms. Kimaya Prajapati, Ms. Vinita Dandekar, Advocates
i/by Naik Naik & Co. for Petitioner.
Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sameer Tapia, Ms.
Siddhi Doshi and Mr. Rohan Marathe, Advocates i/by ALMT Legal
for Respondent.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner
and Mr. Damle, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent.
2. This Petition was mentioned before this Court on 23.09.2025
due to order dated 01.08.2025 'Not Before Me' by the Regular Court.
In view of the exigencies mentioned by Mr. Godbole and duly
supported by Mr. Damle both learned Senior Advocates at the bar due
to expedition order passed by Supreme Court, by consent of parties it
is taken up for final hearing. It was listed on board on 25.09.2025 and
26.09.2025 alongwith 3 other companion Writ Petitions filed by
Petitioner and fully heard. Arguments in the three companion Writ
1 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
Petitions were completed by Mr. Godbole in seriatim. However reply
to the said three Writ Petitions by Mr. Naik, learned Senior Advocate is
not concluded. On 26.09.2025 Mr. Godbole would request the Court
that since present Writ Petition is fully heard, order therein maybe
passed because the Trial Court has given one last opportunity to
Petitioner to lead further evidence and has kept the matter on
29.09.2025. He apprehends that the case of Petitioner wife would be
closed and hence he would persuade the Court to consider his request
in order to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings. I have considered
his request.
3. Present Petition assails order dated 31.01.2025 passed by
learned Family Court in Application Exhibit '229' in M.J. Petition No.
A-2742 of 2015. Petitioner is wife and original Defendant in M.J.
Petition. M.J. Petition No. A-2742 of 2015 is filed by Respondent -
husband in Family Court. On 18.03.2024, Application below Exhibit
'229' is filed by wife seeking disclosure of assets and liabilities i.e.
properties by the husband.
4. Briefly stated, Petitioner and Respondent married on
27.11.2004 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They have one
daughter born out of this marriage. M.J. Petition No.A-2742 of 2015 is
filed by the husband in Family Court, Mumbai in the year 2015 on the
ground of alleged cruelty.
2 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
5. Written statement dated 20.02.2019 is filed therein, wife did
not file any Counter Claim. However during the pendency of
proceedings, wife filed Miscellaneous Application below Exhibit '40'
dated 06.12.2016 for Interim Maintenance. By orders dated
30.07.2018 and 29.08.2018 Family Court directed husband to pay
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- per month to wife, Rs.5,00,000/- to their
daughter and one time litigation expense of Rs.20,00,000/-. Challenge
to this order was dismissed by High Court on 06.02.2020 and further
challenge thereto is pending before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.2719 of 2022.
6. Before Family Court issues were framed on 22.10.2021.
Husband filed Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 17.10.2022
alongwith compilation of documents however in the compilation,
husband did not make any disclosure of his properties and assets in
terms of guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh
Vs. Neha and Anr.1.
7. Husband was thereafter cross-examined by wife's Advocate.
During his cross-examination husband's Advocates persistently
objected to any questions pertaining to his income / financial assets.
There were several proceedings between the parties in the interregnum
which reached the Supreme Court.
1 2021 2 SCC 234
3 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
8. By order dated 03.12.2021 Supreme Court expedited
proceedings before the Family Court. In the meanwhile by order dated
18.09.2024 Supreme Court requested the Family Court to complete
proceedings within a period of 6 months. The proceedings could not be
completed and Family Court sought extension of time to complete the
trial. Monitoring Committee of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
directed the Family Court to hear the matter on day-to-day basis.
9. On 18.03.2024 wife filed Application seeking permanent
alimony. On 12.04.2024 filed pursis closing his evidence. Husband
challenged the Permanent Alimony Application on the ground of
maintainability. By order dated 19.11.2024, the objection on
maintainability was rejected. On 23.01.2025, challenge thereto in this
Court was withdrawn by Respondent - husband.
10. On 27.01.2025, Family Court heard the application. By order
dated 11.02.2025 as the challenge was withdrawn by the husband,
Family Court disposed of the Application holding that additional issue
will have to be framed and Application will have to be considered at
the stage of final disposal of Divorce Petition.
11. Husband filed Affidavit-in-reply to permanent alimony
applicant without making disclosure of his income or assets. Since the
husband did not disclose his income and assets, Petitioner - wife filed
Application seeking direction to make disclosure in terms of judgment
4 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra). This Application came to
be rejected on 31.01.2025. This order is under challenge in the Writ
Petition.
12. Petitioner wife also filed separate Petition before the Family
Court under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and sought
its clubbing with Divorce Petition.
13. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner - wife
would submit that after passing of the impugned order following two
subsequent events took place:-
(i) On 11.2.2025, Family Court delivered a Judgment
overruling the objection of Respondent husband to the
maintainability of application below Exhibit '224' filed
by Petitioner wife seeking permanent alimony. The
said objection was raised by filing Reply at Exhibit
'314' opposing the Application at Exhibit '224' of the
wife. The only point for consideration framed was
whether the wife has right to file Application Exhibit
'224' for permanent alimony. By Judgment and Order
dated 11.02.2025, the Family Court held that
Application at Exhibit '224' is maintainable and
proceedings shall advance to the next stage for a
substantive examination of the claims on merits and
5 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
that parties shall be afforded ample opportunity to
substantiate respective claims of documentary and oral
evidence.
(ii) The second important subsequent event was that on
21.4.2025, Family Court framed additional issue
regarding permanent alimony being Issue No. 4A
which reads as "whether the Respondent is entitled to
the relief of permanent alimony as prayed? If yes,
what amount".
13.1. He would submit that Petitioner - wife's Application for
disclosure below Exhibit '229' is dismissed by the impugned order on
the following grounds :-
13.2. He would submit that the impugned order dismissed the
Application below Exhibit '229' on the ground that the issues were
framed on 21.10.2021 and (at that stage) there was no issue regarding
wife's entitlement to maintenance, as no such claim existed in her
written statement. He would submit that in paragraph No.28 the
Family Court held that in the absence of any pleadings relating to
maintenance on record, there was no necessity to direct Petitioner -
husband to file Affidavit of disclosure.
13.3. He would submit that on account of the above referred
subsequent events namely passing of orders dated 11.02.2025 and
6 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
21.04.2025, on the ground that there is no issue for permanent
alimony framed, it does not survive since Issue No. 4A is now framed.
He would submit that the second reason also does not survive since
Application below Exhibit '224' seeking permanent alimony contains
substantive pleadings.
13.4. He would submit that the impugned Judgment is
unsustainable since the Family Court heavily relied upon the decision
of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jeevanjyoti
Kaur Bansal Vs. Kulvinder Singh Bansal and Ors. 2; and Delhi High
Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta Vs. Sumit Jain3 , however both
these Judgments are distinguishable and do not lay down a binding
precedent.
13.5. He would submit that decision in the case of Jeevanjyoti
Kaur Bansal (supra) lays down a proposition that directions issued by
Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) are not applicable at final stage. He
would submit that in that case, original proceedings were filed under
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV
Act') and were adjudicated and finally decided by judgment dated
18.02.2020 thereby directing husband to pay maintenance. Thereby
aggrieved, husband filed Criminal Appeal before Sessions Court under
Section 29 of DV Act. Pending Appeal, husband filed Application below
2 Writ Petition (St) No.1931 and 1884 of 2024 decided on 20.01.2024.
3 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4520.
7 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
Exhibit '4' in Appeal seeking directions against wife to file Affidavit of
disclosure of assets and liabilities in terms of the guidelines of Supreme
Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). He would submit that Sessions
Court passed order directing disclosure, which was assailed before
High Court. While Family Court extensively considered Rajnesh
(supra), the real issue which arose is whether such direction can be
given at the Appellate Stage. While it is true that the other issue as to
whether directions in the case of Rajnesh (supra) apply only at the
stage of fixing interim maintenance or can be applied even at the time
of considering the claim for permanent alimony has been discussed,
that issue did not arise for consideration therein.
13.6. He would submit that in any case, the Judgment in
Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra) is clearly per incuriam since attention
of the learned Single Judge deciding the case was not invited to two
binding precedents namely; Aditi alias Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharma4
wherein after quoting relevant paragraphs in the report of Rajnesh
(supra), in para No.14 Supreme Court clearly observed that judicial
officers have not been following guidelines regarding fixing
maintenance, either interim or final, and instances were noticed where
the claim for maintenance either interim or final, is decided without
there being any Affidavit on Record filed by parties and further
attention of the Single Judge deciding Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra)
4 Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023 decided by the Supreme Court on 6.11.2023
8 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
was also not invited to the decision of the Single Judge of this Court
(Coram: Bharat P. Deshpande J.) in the case of Sana Razvi Vs. State of
Goa and Ors.5,which arose out of an order passed by the Trial Court
which rejected Application for directing disclosure solely on the ground
that the directions in the case of Rajnesh (supra) were applicable only
at the interim stage and not at the time of final hearing. He would
submit that in para No.6, similar argument was advanced by Advocate
for husband - Respondent No.2 and it was rejected by relying upon
observations of Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi (supra)
and particularly para No.14 thereof and thereafter conclusion was
recorded in para No.10 of Sana Razvi (supra) which reads thus:-
"10. In view of the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court,
it is clear that such directions in the case of Rajnesh (supra) are
also applicable at the final stage. The principles laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) and in the case of
Aditi (supra) are required to be looked into without considering
the stage of the matter."
13.7. Hence, he would argue that decision of the Single Judge in
Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra) does not lay down correct proposition
of law. He would submit that the second judgment relied upon by
Family Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra) was decided by
the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court on 25.7.2023 and thereafter
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi (supra)
was delivered. Hence, the ratio, if any, of the decision in the case of
Shraddha Gupta (supra) stands impliedly overruled.
5 2024 of M.R. (Criminal) 3039
9 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
13.8. He would submit that in the case of Kusum Sharma V/s
Mahindrakumar Sharma6 (which is extensively relied upon in Rajnesh
(supra)), the need for filing Affidavit of Disclosure is discussed and it
held that maintenance is not a legal right but it is a part and parcel of
basic human right and after considering the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Special Marriage Act etc.,
various guidelines were issued. He would submit that in para Nos.16
and 17, Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is specifically
discussed and in para Nos.24 and 25, it is held as under:-
"24. This Court is of the view that a detailed affidavit of the
assets, income and expenditure of both the parties is necessary
to determine their true income.
25. The affidavit of assets, liabilities, income and expenditure of
the parties is necessary not only to fix the maintenance under
Section 24 but also to determine the payment alimony under
Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and right to joint
properties under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act."
13.9. He would submit that in paragraph No.26 onwards Section
10 of Family Courts Act, 1984 has been considered, in para No.36
powers of Court under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are
considered and in paragraph No.38 powers of Civil Court under
Section 30 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are considered. He would
submit that extensive guidelines are issued and paragraph Nos.51, 52
and 53 consider three Supreme Court judgements and paragraph
No.56 considers decision of this Court essentially dealing with Sections
24 and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
6 AIR 2015 Delhi 53
10 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
13.10. He would submit that if powers conferred under Sections
106 and 165 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Order X and XI of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be exercised even at interlocutory
stage for deciding claim for interim maintenance, it cannot be argued
that these powers cannot be exercised at the time of final hearing of
Petition filed by one of the spouses seeking decree of divorce when in
such proceedings an Application for grant of permanent alimony under
Section 25 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1955 is filed and
is required to be decided with the Divorce Petition. He would submit
that when the powers as indicated above can be exercised even at
interlocutory stage, it would have a travesty of justice if it is held that
such power cannot be exercised at the time of final hearing. Hence he
would urge the Court to set aside the impugned order dated
31.01.2025 and allow the Petition.
14. PER CONTRA, Mr. Damle, learned Senior Advocate for
Respondent - husband, in support of the impugned order has made the
following submissions:-
14.1. He would submit that despite there being no pleading in the
Petitioner's written statement or amended written statement, Petitioner
sought to file Application for permanent alimony at Exhibit '229'
seeking disclosure of assets and income of Respondent as per the
guidelines laid down in Rajnesh (supra).
11 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
14.2. He would submit that Petitioner relies on two subsequent
developments in support of captioned Writ Petition, that Respondent's
application below Exhibit '224' raising preliminary objection to
Petitioner's application for permanent alimony was rejected and Writ
Petition challenging said rejection order was withdrawn and additional
issue relating to entitlement of permanent alimony of Petitioner (Issue
No.4A) was framed by Family Court.
14.3. He would however submit that the decision of the Supreme
Court in case of Rajnesh (supra) is crystal clear in as much as the
affidavit of assets and income of spouse is necessary to be filed only at
the stage of interim maintenance and for deciding issue of permanent
alimony parties ought to lead evidence. He would submit that in that
decision discussion on payment of interim maintenance begins at
paragraph No.62 under the heading: " Payment of Interim
Maintenance" and its conclusions are set out in para No.72, however
the issue of permanent alimony is dealt with separately in paragraph
No.73.
14.4. He would submit that Supreme Court in para Nos.72 and 73
in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has indicated this distinction and what is
proposed in paragraph No.72 does not apply to paragraph No.73. He
would submit that therefore a clear and precise distinction has been
drawn by Supreme Court as to the modalities while considering grant
12 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
of interim maintenance and permanent alimony separately.
14.5. He would submit that this Court in the case of Jeevanjyoti
Kaur Bansal (supra) followed Rajnesh (supra) and categorically
reiterated the correct legal position that Affidavit of assets and income
is to be filed only at the stage of deciding interim maintenance. The
relevant portion of Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra) is enumerated in
paragraph No.14 therein. He would submit that decision in Jeevanjyoti
Kaur Bansal (supra) is the latest judicial pronouncement relating to
this matter and hence is required to be followed.
14.6. He would submit that a peculiar situation has arisen in the
present case whereby Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh (supra)
decided earlier stated that Affidavit of assets and income has to be
filed at the stage of interim maintenance, whereas the later decision in
the case of Aditi alias Mithi (supra) states that such affidavit ought to
be filed even at the stage of deciding permanent alimony. He would
fairly submit that these two judgments have been interpreted by this
Court in the case of Sana Razvi (supra), after considering the
judgments of Rajnesh (supra) and Aditi alias Mithi (supra) holding
that Affidavit of assets and income can be filed at the stage of deciding
permanent alimony.
14.7. He would submit that prima facie, Aditi alias Mithi (supra) is
in conflict with Rajnesh (supra) and Sana Razvi (supra) [citing
13 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
Rajnesh (supra) and Aditi alias Mithi (supra)] in conflict with
Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra) which seems to have not considered
the said judgments.
14.8. He would submit that case before Family Court is ripe for
final arguments (save and except a few miscellaneous applications
which are to be heard). He would submit that Issue No.4A relating to
entitlement and grant of permanent alimony has been framed and
shall be decided in accordance with law. However he would argue that
the wife sought to place on record numerous documents relating to
purported income and assets of husband before Family Court during
the course of trial. He would submit that none of these documents
were rejected by Family Court, save and except those documents which
were filed incorrectly by Petitioner (wife) for non-compliance with
provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, he
would submit that Petitioner - wife herself accepted mandate of
Rajnesh (supra) and at no stage made a grievance that she will not
lead evidence relating to finances of Respondent - husband until such
time as he filed his Affidavit of assets and income.
14.9. He would argue that subsequent developments do not have
any bearing on the present Writ Petition. He would submit that
subsequent to the issue relating to permanent alimony being framed on
21.04.2025, Petitioner - wife filed additional affidavit in lieu of
14 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
examination-in-chief along with compilation of documents dated
06.05.2025 before Family Court, exclusively dealing with the newly
framed issue. He would submit that impugned order state many
reasons for rejecting the application, one of which is the fact that no
issue of permanent alimony is framed. He would submit that Family
Court has correctly passed order thereby placing reliance on Rajnesh
(supra), Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra) and Shraddha Gupta (supra)
in deciding the application below Exhibit '229'. He would therefore
urge the Court to dismiss the Petition and uphold the impugned order.
15. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied
upon the following decisions:-
(i) Union Territory of Ladakh and Ors. Vs. Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference and Anr.7;
(ii) Jaydeo s/o. Mahadeo Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors.8;
(iii) A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation Vs. Tahsildar and
Ors.9;
(iv) State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma
and Anr.10;
(v) Indo Swiss Time Limited, Bundahera Vs. Umrao and
Ors.11;
7 Civil Appeal No.5707 of 2023 - Dated 06.09.2023.
8 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 497
9 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447
10 (2016) 15 SCC 289
11 1981 SCC OnLine P&H 45
15 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
(vi) Waryam Singh and Anr. Vs. Amarnath and Anr.12;
(vii) Nagendra Nath Bora and Anr. Vs. The Commissioner of
Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Ors.13;
(viii) Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar14;
(ix) Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.15 and
(x) Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram16.
16. I have heard learned Senior Advocates Mr. Godbole for
Petitioner - wife and Mr. Damle for Respondent - husband and with
their able assistance perused the record. Submissions made by them
have received due consideration of the Court.
17. In the present Petition, sum and substance argued before me
is whether guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh (supra) are applicable in proceedings for deciding interim
maintenance or at the time of determining permanent alimony.
According to Mr. Godbole, the Family Court has interpreted decision in
the case of Rajnesh (supra) by solely relying upon the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)
in the case of Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra) and held that the
directories by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) are
applicable only at the interim stage. He would however contend that
12 (1954) 1 SCC 51
13 1958 SCC OnLine SC 45 : AIR 1958 SC 398
14 (2002) 8 SCC 400
15 (2001) 8 SCC 97
16 (1986) 4 SCC 447
16 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
said observations are also applicable at the final stage for
determination of permanent alimony and the learned Family Court has
therefore committed an error.
18. In order to adjudicate the aforesaid lis where case of both
husband and wife are at variance with each other, reliance is placed by
both on the following six decisions for consideration:-
(i) Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. (supra);
(ii) Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahindrakumar Sharma (supra);
(iii) Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal Vs. Kulvinder Singh Bansal and
Ors. (supra);
(iv) Shraddha Gupta Vs. Sumit Jain (supra);
(v) Aditi alias Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharma (supra); and
(vi) Sana Razvi V/s State of Goa and Ors. (supra).
19. On 06.08.2020, the Delhi High Court in the case of Kusum
Sharma (supra) after conducting an elaborate exercise and with
reference to international based practices laid down substantive
directions and guidelines for determination of permanent alimony of
either spouse. While referring to those elaborate guidelines, Supreme
Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) on 04.11.2020 framed guidelines
on the issue of maintenance which would cover overlapping
jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance,
payment of interim maintenance, the criteria for determining the
17 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be
awarded and enforcement of maintenance orders under the title
guidelines / directions on maintenance. It needs to be streamed that
the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court were not with reference
to and in Rajnesh (supra), but as a matter of general disposition by
appointing amici.
20. According to Mr. Damle, Supreme Court issued guidelines in
Rajnesh (supra) only in a case where Application for maintenance is
made at interim stage and they would not be applicable for
determining permanent alimony. The said guidelines pertain to
leading oral and documentary evidence with respect to income,
expenditure, standard of living, etc before the Court concerned for
fixing the permanent alimony payable to the spouse, for which
appropriate disclosure affidavits of income, assets, properties are
required to be filed. An elaborate procedure is recommended by
Supreme Court in paragraph No.72 calling for a uniform format of
Affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities to be filed in
maintenance proceedings and accordingly guidelines are framed in
exercise of power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution of India. According to Mr. Damle, these guidelines would
only be applicable for determination of interim maintenance and not
for determination of permanent alimony whereas according to Mr.
Godbole the said guidelines would be applicable for determination of
18 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
both i.e. interim maintenance as also permanent alimony. This is the
question decided by me.
21. In the present case, it is seen that in the year 2017 i.e. before
the aforesaid guidelines were framed, interim maintenance was
decided by Family Court by directing Respondent - husband to pay a
lumpsum amount of Rs.7 lakhs to the wife and Rs.5 lakhs to the
daughter alongwith one time litigation expense of Rs.20 lakhs. It is
seen that wife filed Application for determination of permanent
alimony wherein she has led her evidence. However she has filed
Application seeking directions to husband for disclosure of his assets
and properties which is opposed by husband and by the impugned
order Application is rejected.
22. Mr. Damle has referred to the interpretation of the decision
in the case of Rajnesh (supra) while relying upon the decision of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jeevanjyoti Kaur
Bansal (supra) wherein the learned Single Judge held that Supreme
Court proceeded to lay down general guidelines and directions which
would apply only to cases concerning payment of interim maintenance.
Learned Single Judge has held that what was under consideration of
the Supreme Court was issue of payment of interim maintenance in
that case which is required to be decided on the basis of pleadings
involving certain guess-work for the purpose of prima facie assessment
19 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
of the quantum and filing Affidavits of assets and liabilities placed
before the Court to make assessment of quantum of maintenance at
the interim stage. The learned Single Judge has held that mandate of
Supreme Court was to direct filing of Affidavit of disclosure at the
stage of deciding Application for interim maintenance for grant of
interim maintenance only. Based on aforesaid decision of learned
Single Judge, Application filed by Respondent - wife has been
dismissed by virtue of the impugned order.
23. However, it is seen that the decision in the case of Rajnesh
(supra) has been re-visited by the Supreme Court in the case of Aditi
alias Mithi (supra) and on 06.11.2023 the Supreme Court in paragraph
Nos.8 and 15 clarified as under:-
"8. The manner in which maintenance payable under Section
24 of the Hindu Mariage Act, 1955 or Section 125 Cr. P.C. is to
be assessed, was considered by this Court in its celebrated
judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Detailed
guidelines were issued. It was noticed that the terms of
maintenance are decided on the basis of pleadings of parties
and on the basis of some amount of guess work. It is often seen
that both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose
correct details. The tendency of the wife is to exaggerate her
needs, whereas the husband tends to conceal his actual income.
Keeping that in view, this Court laid down the procedure to
streamline grant of maintenance. The judgments of various
courts were referred to and response from various State Legal
Services Authorities was sought. This Court even requested the
National Legal Services Authority to submit a report on the
suggestions received from the State Legal Services Authorities
for framing guidelines on the affidavit of disclosure of assets
and liabilities to be filed by the parties. Guidelines were issued
in exercise of powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of
the Constitution of India, prescribing a uniform format of
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in
maintenance proceedings. The judgment was delivered on
04.11.2020. The affidavit was to be submitted in all
20 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
maintenance proceedings including pending proceedings. The
directions given are extracted as under:
"72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed
in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it
necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers
under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution
of India:
72.1. (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and
Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this
judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the
parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending
proceedings before the Family Court/District Court/
Magistrate's Court concerned, as the case may be,
throughout the country;
72.2. (b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance
will be required to file a concise application accompanied
with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;
72.3. (c) The respondent must submit the reply along with
the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of
four weeks. The courts may not grant more than two
opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure
of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the
respondent delays in filing the reply with the affidavit,
and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose,
the court may consider exercising the power to strike off
the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to
be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings
[Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain, (2020) 17 SCC 822]. On the
failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the
Family Court may proceed to decide the application for
maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the
applicant and the pleadings on record;
72.4. (d) The above format may be modified by the court
concerned, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It
would be left to the judicial discretion of the court
concerned to issue necessary directions in this regard.
72.5. (e) If apart from the information contained in the
Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is
required, the court concerned may pass appropriate orders
in respect thereof.
72.6. (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the
declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the
aggrieved party may seek permission of the court to serve
interrogatories, and seek production of relevant
documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC.
On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the
provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence
Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income
of one party is often not within the knowledge of the
21 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
other spouse. The court may invoke Section 106 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets
and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal
knowledge of the party concerned.
72.7. (g) If during the course of proceedings, there is a
change in the financial status of any party, or there is a
change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new
information comes to light, the party may submit an
amended/supplementary affidavit, which would be
considered by the court at the time of final determination.
72.8. (h) The pleadings made in the applications for
maintenance and replies filed should be responsible
pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are
made, the court may consider initiation of proceeding
under Section 340CrPC, and for contempt of court.
72.9. (i) In case the parties belong to the economically
weaker sections ("EWS"), or are living below the poverty
line ("BPL"), or are casual labourers, the requirement of
filing the affidavit would be dispensed with.
72.10.(j) The Family Court/District Court/Magistrate's
Court concerned must make an endeavour to decide the IA
for interim maintenance by a reasoned order, within a
period of four to six months at the latest, after the
Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court.
72.11.(k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be
made available in every Family Court."
9. Criteria was also laid down for determining the quantum
of maintenance. Guidelines were laid down regarding
maintenance to minor children in paras 91 and 92 thereof,
which are extracted below:
"Permanent alimony
91. The living expenses of the child would include
expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses,
education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other
vocational training courses to complement the basic
education must be factored in, while awarding child
support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be
awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an
overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be normally
borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning
sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately
between the parties."
xxxxxx
15. Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by
the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that
affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of judgment of
this Court in Rajnesh's case (supra), which was directed to be
22 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
communicated to all the High Courts for further circulation to
all the Judicial Officers for awareness and implementation. 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."
23.1. Thereafter another learned Single Judge of this Court in the
case of Sana Razvi (supra) on 29.11.2023 while relying upon both
Rajnesh and Aditi alias Mithi's decisions held that directions contained
in Rajnesh (supra) and in Aditi alias Mithi (supra) are applicable at the
final stage involving grant of maintenance and alimony. Both these
decisions namely Sana Razvi (supra) and Aditi alias Mithi (supra)
delivered on 06.11.2023 and 29.11.2023 were not placed before the
learned Single Judge of this Court which decided the case of
Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra) on 20.03.2024.
24. In the above context, Supreme Court while deciding case of
Aditi alias Mithi (supra) has in the said judgment after quoting the
relevant paragraphs in the case of Rajnesh (supra) in paragraph No.14
clearly observed that the judicial officers have not been following
23 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
guidelines regarding fixing maintenance, either interim or final and
instances are noticed where the claim for maintenance either interim
or final, is decided without there being any Affidavit on record filed by
the parties. This clarification and distinction by the Supreme Court is
crucial and goes to the root of the matter.
25. After analyzing the aforesaid judgments namely principal
judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra) in its entirety read with the
decisions in the case of Aditi alias Mithi (supra) and Sana Razvi
(supra), I am of the clear opinion that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal
(supra) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. It is per
incuriam it needs to be reiterated that decisions and guidelines framed
in the case of Rajnesh (supra) depended extensively on the decision of
Delhi High Court in the case of Kusum Sharma (supra) wherein the
need for filing Affidavit of disclosure is discussed at length by
considering international practices as also practices followed in the
Indian Courts and it was held that maintenance is not a legal right but
it is a part and parcel of basic human right and only after considering
the various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Special Marriage Act, 1954,
Family Courts Act, 1984, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the powers to the
Civil Court under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and
only thereafter the said guidelines were issued. Hence the submissions
24 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
made on behalf of Petitioner - wife deserve to be accepted.
26. The factors considered by the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh (supra) for determination of quantum of maintenance whether
interim / permanent alimony are stated in paragraph Nos.77 and 78
thereof. For immediate reference and convenience, paragraph Nos.77
and 78 are reproduced below:-
"III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to
ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution
or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as
a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket
formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia
are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and
dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and
professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any
independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient
to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant
was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working
during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was
required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing
the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the
family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife."
27. In paragraph No.84 onwards in the case of Rajnesh (supra),
the Supreme Court has referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court
in the case of Bharat Hegde Vs. Saroj Hegde17 which laid down factors
to be considered for determining maintenance. These factors
pertaining to age and employment of parties, right to residence, where
wife is earning some income, maintenance of minor children, and
17 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622
25 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
serious disability or ill health. For immediate reference and
convenience, paragraph Nos.84 to 93 as appearing in the decision of
Rajnesh (supra) are reproduced herein below:-
"84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde
[Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 :
(2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the following factors to be
considered for determining maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para
8)
"1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar
lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical
attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income
of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are
not disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable
against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act."
85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove,
certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining
the quantum of maintenance payable.
(a) Age and employment of parties
86. In a marriage of long duration, where parties have
endured the relationship for several years, it would be a relevant
factor to be taken into consideration. On termination of the
relationship, if the wife is educated and professionally qualified,
but had to give up her employment opportunities to look after
the needs of the family being the primary caregiver to the minor
children, and the elder members of the family, this factor would
be required to be given due importance. This is of particular
relevance in contemporary society, given the highly competitive
industry standards, the separated wife would be required to
undergo fresh training to acquire marketable skills and retrain
herself to secure a job in the paid workforce to rehabilitate
herself. With advancement of age, it would be difficult for a
dependent wife to get an easy entry into the workforce after a
break of several years.
26 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
(b) Right to residence
87. Section 17 of the DV Act grants an aggrieved woman the
right to live in the "shared household". Section 2(s) defines
"shared household" to include the household where the
aggrieved woman lived at any stage of the domestic
relationship; or the household owned and rented jointly or
singly by both, or singly by either of the spouses; or a joint
family house, of which the respondent is a member.
88. The right of a woman to reside in a "shared household"
defined under Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for
right of residence in the shared household, irrespective of her
having any legal interest in the same. This Court in Satish
Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [Satish Chander Ahuja v.Sneha
Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, by a Bench comprising of Hon'ble
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.] held
that "shared household" referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared
household of the aggrieved person where she was living at the
time when the application was filed, or at any stage lived in a
domestic relationship. The living of the aggrieved woman in the
shared household must have a degree of permanence. A mere
fleeting or casual living at different places would not constitute
a "shared household". It is important to consider the intention
of the parties, nature of living, and nature of the household, to
determine whether the premises is a "shared household".
Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act entitles
a woman to the right of residence in a shared household,
irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. There is
no requirement of law that the husband should be a member of
the joint family, or that the household must belong to the joint
family, in which he or the aggrieved woman has any right, title
or interest. The shared household may not necessarily be owned
or tenanted by the husband singly or jointly.
89. Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act provides that the
Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the
respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation
for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared
household. While passing such an order, the Magistrate may
direct the respondent to pay the rent and other payments,
having regard to the financial needs and resources of the
parties.
(c) Where wife is earning some income
90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot
operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the
husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the
following judgments:
90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12
SCC 199 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the
27 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC
OnLine Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)] , this Court held that
merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a
sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the
Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of
the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in
accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial
home. [Chaturbhuj v.Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not mean,
and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. [Vipul Lakhanpal
v.Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252 : 2015 Cri LJ 3451]
90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha
v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ)
753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate
degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The
husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient
income, she would not require financial assistance from the
husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held
that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could
not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v.
Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v.Kalyani Sanjay
Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the
judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v.Anil
Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential
to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre,
is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable
of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children,
and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn
sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High
Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v.
Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The
onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that
there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to
maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for
reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the
exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn
by the court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v.Shahid Khan [Shamima
Farooqui v.Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in
Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v.Shila Rani, 1968 SCC
OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that
the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on
a higher pedestal than the wife.
(d) Maintenance of minor children
28 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses
for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of
children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training
courses to complement the basic education must be factored in,
while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable
amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and
not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be normally
borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning
sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately
between the parties.
(e) Serious disability or ill health
93. Serious disability or ill health of a spouse, child/children
from the marriage/dependent relative who require constant care
and recurrent expenditure, would also be a relevant
consideration while quantifying maintenance."
28. All the aforesaid factors contribute towards determination of
maintenance namely alimony whether at interim stage or the final
stage. In concluding paragraph Nos.126 to 132 while issuing final
directions, the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has held
as under:-
"126. Striking off the defence of the respondent is an order
which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the courts find
default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a
dependent unemployed wife, and minor children. Contempt
proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the
appropriate court.
VI. Final Directions
127. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part
-- I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the
following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142
of the Constitution of India.
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
128. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and
avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it
has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that
there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family
Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the
country. We direct that:
29 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
128.1. (i) Where successive claims for maintenance are made
by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an
adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous
proceeding(s), while determining whether any further amount
is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.
128.2. (ii) It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose
the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the
subsequent proceeding.
128.3. (iii) If the order passed in the previous proceeding(s)
requires any modification or variation, it would be required to
be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
129. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be
applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance
proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family
Court/District Court/Magistrates Court concerned, as the case
may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
130. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to
an applicant, the court shall take into account the criteria
enumerated in Part B -- III of the judgment. The aforesaid
factors are however not exhaustive, and the court concerned
may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor(s) which
may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances
of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be
awarded from the date of filing the application for
maintenance, as held in Part B -- IV above.
(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance
132. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is
directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be
enforced under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, as may
be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a
money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC,
more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21"
29. Thus from the above, it is seen that the Supreme Court has
categorically held that Affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities
format of which are annexed as Enclosures I, II and III to the said
judgment as may be applicable, (emphasis underlined) shall be fixed
30 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, (emphasis underlined)
including pending proceedings before the Family Court concerned, as
the case may be, throughout the country.
30. The Supreme Court holds that for determining the quantum
of maintenance payable to an Applicant, the Court shall take into
account the criteria enumerated in part B - III of the said judgment.
The Supreme Court further holds that the factors are however not
exhaustive and the Court concerned may exercise its discretion to
consider any other factors which may be necessary or of relevance in
the facts and circumstances of a case.
31. In the light of the above, the impugned judgment appended
at Exhibit 'A' - page No.47 of the Petition passed by the Family Court
holding that guidelines laid down in the case of Rajnesh (supra) do not
apply to Application of wife, that there is no claim for maintenance or
permanent alimony under Respondent - wife's written statement and
no issue has been framed in this regard when Issue No.4A has been
subsequently framed on 21.04.2025 cannot be countenanced and
deserves to be set aside.
32. The learned Single Judge holds that issue of maintenance
which has already been decided by the Family Court in the year 2017
is now pending before Supreme Court. The entire judgment leans only
on one fact that written statement of Respondent - wife does not
31 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
contain claim for permanent maintenance, instead it seeks dismissal of
the Divorce Petition and no issue has been framed regarding wife's
entitlement to maintenance therein.
33. The decision of Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias
Mithi (supra) and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Sana Razvi (supra) has not been placed for
consideration of the learned Single Judge in the case of Jeevanjyoti
Kaur Bansal (supra). In that view of the matter, the said decision of
the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jeevanjyoti Kaur
Bansal (supra) is held to be per incuriam and the submissions made by
Mr. Godbole as alluded to herein above deserve to be accepted in toto.
In view of the fact that on 21.04.2025, learned Judge of the Family
Court has framed the additional Issue No.4A regarding permanent
alimony, the substantive reasons given by the learned Judge in the
impugned order dated 31.01.2025 about the issue not been framed is
therefore unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
34. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal (supra) dated 20.03.2024
is clearly per incuriam since attention of the learned Single Judge at
the time of decision of the said decision was not invited to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi (supra)
and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
32 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
Sana Razvi (supra), both of which were decided in prior point of time.
35. The impugned judgment is bereft of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi (supra) as also the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sana Razvi (supra)
referred to herein above which were placed before the learned Family
Court while determining the Application below Exhibit '229'.
36. In view of the aforesaid observations, findings and the
subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias
Mithi (supra) of equal strength clarifying the decision in the case of
Rajnesh (supra) as also the discussion herein above, impugned order
dated 31.01.2025 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed
and set aside. Impugned judgment dated 31.01.2025 is set aside.
Resultantly Application filed below Exhibit '229' stands allowed.
37. Respondent - Original Petitioner is directed to file his
Affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities within a period of three
weeks from today in the Family Court to enable the Family Court to
determine the proceedings strictly in accordance with law and as per
the directions and guidelines passed by the Supreme Court in the
aforestated decisions.
38. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and
disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
33 of 34
WP.4414.2025.doc
39. After the above order is pronounced in Court, Mr. Damle,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent - husband
persuades the Court to stay the effect of this order in order to test its
legality and validity in the Supreme Court. Mr. Godbole, learned
Senior Advocate for Petitioner - wife vehemently opposes for grant of
any stay in view of the timeline in the present case as also the fact that
present case was directed to be determined in the time bound
programme by the Supreme Court in the year 2024 as also in the year
2025 by two separate orders. Considering the timeline in the present
case which has been alluded to herein above, I am not inclined to stay
the present order. Hence the request for stay made by Mr. Damle
stands rejected.
40. Learned Trial Court shall take cognizance of a server copy of
this order since the matter is listed before the Trial Court today at
03:00 pm.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.09.29
13:06:35 +0530
34 of 34
