Are Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. Guidelines Mandatory for Maintenance Cases?

This question once again came for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharma, while dealing with a Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023, arising out of a maintenance case filed by the appellant under section 125 Cr.P.C.

It is to be mentioned here that in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued details guidelines to be followed in all the cases related to maintenance and also made it mandatory to file affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities 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. The format of the said affidavit were annexed as enclosures I, II and III with the judgment of the Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. Apparently, the guidelines issued in the Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr reported in ( 2021) 2 SCC 324, has over ruled other guidelines earlier issued by the respective High Courts with regard to the maintenance cases. 

While hearing the case of Mithi Vs. Jitesh Sharam ( supra), it was found that the guidelines issued in the Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. reported in ( 2021) 2 SCC 324, has not been followed in that case as such the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

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 and Another, (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 maintenance proceedings including pending proceedings. It has been further observed in the para no.14 of the said judgment that:- 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 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.

15. As in the case in hand, the impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and is bereft of reasons. In our opinion, the same deserves to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh. Ordered accordingly. As the respondent remained unrepresented, the High Court may issue notice for his appearance on the date so fixed by it. 16. Considering the facts of the case in hand and the other similar cases coming across before this Court not adhering to the guidelines given in Rajnesh’s case (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate the aforesaid judgment not only to all the Judicial Officers through the High Courts concerned but also to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during the training programmes as well. Ordered accordingly.

So as of now the guidelines issued through the judgement of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. reported in ( 2021) 2 SCC 324 are mandatory in nature to be followed in all the cases of maintenance by all the Courts dealing with the case of maintenance throughout the country.