Salochana @ Sonu vs Dhiraj Sharma
2025 Latest Caselaw 5545 HP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5545 HP
Judgement Date : 19 August, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Salochana @ Sonu vs Dhiraj Sharma on 19 August, 2025

                                                                    ( 2025:HHC:28023 )


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                   CMPMO No. 521 of 2024
                                    Decided on: 19.08.2025
    ____________________________________________________




                                                                                .
    Salochana @ Sonu                      ........... petitioner





                                                Versus





    Dhiraj Sharma                              ..........respondent
    ____________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge





    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the petitioner                      :     Mr. Kanwar            Bhupinder         Singh,
                                                  Advocate.

    For the respondent                      :
                                Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior

                                Advocate,    with   Ms. Rinki
                                Kashmiri, Advocate.
    ____________________________________________________
    Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

The present petition has been filed against the

impugned order dated 05.06.2024, passed by the learned

Principal Judge (Family Court), District Shimla in CNR HPSH

10000392022, CIS Registration No. 108/2022, whereby in an

application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

for grant of maintenance Pendent Lite and expenses of litigation,

the present petitioner has been awarded an amount of ₹5,000/-

per month from the date of filing of application and a lump sum

amount of ₹20,000/- is ordered to be paid towards the litigation

expenses.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

( 2025:HHC:28023 )

3. The order-sheets with respect to the way and

manner, in which the proceedings before the learned Trial Court

have proceeded (page Nos. 49 to 59 of the file) have been

appended as Annexure P-5.

4. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that insofar

as the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2021) 2

SCC 324, titled Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr qua filing of affidavits of

disclosure of assets and liabilities qua the respondent is

concerned, the same have been observed more in their breach

rather in their observance. The guideline laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in this respect is being reproduced hereinbelow for

ready reference as under:-

"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. 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;"

5. Other than the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to

refer to the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the present

respondent before the Courts below. A specific reference to Para

( 2025:HHC:28023 )

No. 9 of the same would be relevant, which is reproduced as

under:-

"9 Furnish copies of bank statement of all accounts

.

for the last 3 years. That I am having my Saving

Bank Account with SBI Pantha Ghati and another account with HDFC Bank Mehli."

6. From the same, it is evident that the disclosure in the

affidavit filed by the respondent qua the bank accounts of the

respondent are incomplete. The remedy qua the same is

provided in Para No. 72.6 (f) of Rajnesh's Case (supra). The

same is reproduced for ready reference:-

"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 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."

7. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the

impugned order dated 05.06.2024 i.e. Annexure P-6, in the case

at hand is based on incomplete information. Hence, in view

thereof, the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 is set aside.

8. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below

on 25.09.2025. On the same date respondent would furnish

details of his bank account as is required in terms of Para No. 9

( 2025:HHC:28023 )

of the affidavit of disclosure. Pendent Lite maintenance shall be

redetermined based on the filing of the same. Till the re-

determination of the pendent lite maintenance happens the

respondent is directed to pay ₹5,000/- per month to the present