Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sudeshwala @ Sudeshi Jain W/O ... vs Abhishek Jain on 12 December, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2022
FIRST APPEAL No.1418 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SUDESHWALA @ SUDESHI JAIN W/O
ABHISHEK JAIN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE D/O SHRI
KANCHHEDILAL JAIN, R/O WARD NO.13,
MAIN ROAD, SHAHPURA(BHITOUNI) P.S.
AND TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR(M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRABHAT RANJAN TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE)
AND
ABHISHEK JAIN S/O RAJKUMAR JAIN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O IN FRONT OF
SHAKTI NAGAR GULABARA,
CHHINDWARA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
CHHINDWARA(M.P.)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANJAY SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 2 -
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice SHEEL NAGU passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Present appeal preferred by appellant-wife filed u/S 19(4) of
Family Court Act, 1984 r/w Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
assails order dated 13.09.2022 by which pendente lite maintenance to
the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month has been awarded to the wife during
pendency of divorce petition preferred by respondent-husband.
2. The impugned order has been passed after partly allowing the
application u/S 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act preferred by the wife in
which claim of Rs.25,000/- per month for pendente lite maintenance
was made.
3. Aggrieved, the wife is before this Court in this appeal, seeking
enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance.
4. Without going into merits of the matter, it is obvious from the
record and also from the statement of learned counsel for rival parties
that law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha
and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 in regard to the contents and nature
of the pleadings required in an application u/S 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act and in its reply, was not followed by the rival parties,
thereby depriving the Family Court from being apprised of the
material facts and circumstances faced by the rival parties and in the
- 3 -
process preventing the Family Court from appropriately adjudicating
the issue of pendente lite maintenance. Relevant extract of the
judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (supra) is
reproduced below for ready reference and convenience :-
"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;
- 4 -
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 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 340 CrPC,
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.
- 5 -
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."
5. Learned counsel for the rival parties further informs that divorce
petition preferred by respondent-husband is listed for final arguments
on 14.12.2022.
6. Be that as it may, since the ground raised by learned counsel for
appellant of non-compliance of mandatory procedure laid down by
Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (supra), is
not denied by counsel for the respondent-husband, this Court without
entering into merits of the claim for pendente lite maintenance,
disposes of this appeal with following directions:
(i) The impugned order dated 13.09.2022 passed by Principal
Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara in Regular Civil Suit (Hindu
Marriage Act) No.255-A/2018, stands set aside;
(ii) The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara is
directed to ensure filing of proper pleadings by both the parties in
terms of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs.
Neha and another (supra) within a period of 30 days and; thereafter,
decide the issue of pendente lite maintenance within ten days in terms
- 6 -
of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha
and another (supra);
(iii) The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara may
thereafter proceed to adjudicate the divorce petition of respondent-
husband as expeditiously as possible.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
YS
Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR
SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2022.12.13 11:32:13 +05'30'
