1. In all these appeals, the decree of divorce granted by the learned Trial Court to husband is under challenge by the wife. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellants are seeking to invoke Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to claim permanent alimony. In MAT. APR 35/2010, FAO 369/1996, MAT. APR 47/2005, 33/2010, 8/2013 and FAO 297/1997, the appellants have filed application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Let the reply to the said applications be filed within four weeks. In MAT. APP. 64/2007, 124/2010 and 36/2012, the appellants seek two weeks time to file the application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Let all the parties file their affidavits of assets, income and expenditure from the date of the marriage upto this date within two weeks. The affidavits shall contain all the particulars mentioned in para 7 and shall be accompanied with documents mentioned in para 8 of Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney, 183 (2011) DLT 403=III (2011) DMC 487. The affidavit shall also contain particulars of properties mentioned in Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The response to the affidavits be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter. 3. The Hindu Marriage Act is a complete code which codifies all the rights, liabilities and obligations arising from a matrimonial tie. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides a very important right of permanent alimony and maintenance to the wife which can be invoked either at the time of passing of the decree by the Trial Court or at any time subsequent thereto. Section 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act provides for an expeditious trial to be concluded within a period of six months, However, the disposal of petitions before the Trial Courts take many years. The main reason for such delay is that the decision on the application for maintenance under Section 24 itself takes more than a year whereas proviso to Section 24 provides that the application should be disposed of within 60 days. This is a matter of serious concern. Considering the importance of Sections 21-B, 23-A and 24 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, this Court appointed the amici curiae who have given valuable suggestions. 4. This is a matter of serious concern. Considering the importance of Sections 21-B, 23-A and 24 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, this Court appointed the amici curiae who have given valuable suggestions. 4. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, I (1985) DMC 308 (SC)= (1985) 2 SCC 370 , Fazal Ali, J. made the following remarks while dealing with the rights of a women in a matrimonial dispute: “Sometimes the law which is meant to impart justice and fair play to the citizens or people of the country is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving haven to the disappointed and dejected litigants it negatives their well established rights in law. The present case reveals the sad story of a helpless married woman who, having been turned out by her husband without returning her ornaments, money and clothes despite repeated demands, and dishonestly misappro­priating the same, seems to have got some relief by the Court of the first instance but to her utter dismay and disappointment when she moved the High Court she was forced like a dumb—driven cattle to seek the dilatory remedy of a civil suit — such was the strange and harsh approach of the High Court, with due respect, which seems to have shed all the norms of justice and fair play. Even so, the High Court is not much to be blamed because in the process of following precedents or decisions of doubtful validity of some Courts, it tried to follow suit....” Relevant provisions 5. Sections 21 -B and 23-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, were added by Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 with a view to expedite the trial under the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 21-B requires the trial to continue from day to day until its conclusion. The Trial Court has to record reasons if it finds necessary to adjourn the case beyond the following day. Section 21-B(3) further requires the trial to be concluded within a period of six months. Section 23-A permits the respondent to make a counter claim for any relief under the Act. 6. Section 24 empowers the Court to award maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Section 21-B(3) further requires the trial to be concluded within a period of six months. Section 23-A permits the respondent to make a counter claim for any relief under the Act. 6. Section 24 empowers the Court to award maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Section ‘24’ provides for interim relief to the husband or the wife, as the case may be, provided he or she has no independent income sufficient for his or her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings. The proviso to Section 24 provides that the application for the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses shall so far as possible be disposed of within a period of 60 days from the date of the service of the notice of the application. 7. Section 25 empowers the Court to award permanent alimony and mainte­nance to the spouse. The application under Section 25 can be filed either at the time of passing of the decree or at any time subsequent thereto. Section 25 lays down that the Court can direct the non-applicant to pay for maintenance and support of the applicant such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant having regard to the respondent?s own income and other property, if any, and the income and other property of the applicant. It further lays down that the Court has also to take into account the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. Sub-section (2) also provides for the modification or revocation of the order passed under Sub-section (1) in case of change in the circumstances of the party which were prevailing at the time of passing of the initial order. Sub-section (3) further provides another contingency when the Court can interfere with the initial order of granting maintenance. Taking these aspects together, there are sufficient guidelines to adjudicate the claim of maintenance. 8. Section 25 is ancillary to the main proceedings under the Act. The limita­tions upon the exercise of power are contained in the provision itself. This is clarified by the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act, where the circumstances in which the alimony is likely to be withdrawn are specified. 8. Section 25 is ancillary to the main proceedings under the Act. The limita­tions upon the exercise of power are contained in the provision itself. This is clarified by the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act, where the circumstances in which the alimony is likely to be withdrawn are specified. However, the benefit of the provision is not to be denied to the parties who have suffered the misfortune to have their marriage dissolved by the decree of the Court, merely on account of the passing of the decree, if they are otherwise entitled to the maintenance and it was certainly not the intention of the law that the parties to the dissolved marriage must suffer further misery of starvation without grant of alimony. 9. Section 26 empowers the Court to pass an order with respect to custody, maintenance and education of the minor children. The proviso to Section 26 provides that the application under Section 26 shall so far as possible be disposed of within a period of 60 days from the date of the service of the notice. 10. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to make provision with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. 11. Suggestions of Ms. Anu Narula, learned amicus curias. Problems 11.1 The law laid down in Puneet Kaur (supra) which was meant to provide effective solace to the claimant spouse, in terms of correct estimation of income of both spouses and speedy disposal of maintenance claims has given remarkable results in cases, where it has been followed in letter and spirit. However in cases, where the judgment is being followed only in letter and not in spirit (which are unfortunately sizable in number), the claimants have been deprived of its benefit. 11.2 Since the judgment of Puneet Kaur (supra) was essentially under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the same is not being strictly adhered to by the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates in cases under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 125, Cr.P.C. and Civil Courts/Family Courts in cases under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. 11.2 Since the judgment of Puneet Kaur (supra) was essentially under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the same is not being strictly adhered to by the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates in cases under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 125, Cr.P.C. and Civil Courts/Family Courts in cases under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Few Courts do order the affidavits to be filed in terms of Puneet Kaur (supra), while in some cases, the Courts only order the production of bank accounts/statements, ITRs and details of property above value of one lakh, five lakhs, etc. for last 3/5 years. Hence, no standard uniform practice and procedure is followed by the Courts even in respect of furnishing of details and documents by spouses. 11.3 Even after the affidavits of income are filed, it does not yield any fruitful outcome, as it invariably lacks the complete disclosure and particulars. When the said aspects are pointed out, the Courts on account of either scarcity of time or haste, do not even wait to scan or verify the same fact even ex facie. Their normal response is that these inadequacies can be pointed out during arguments or an appropriate application be filed. Even if the application is filed, at least 4/5 dates are consumed in awaiting reply, rejoinders, arguments, etc. When the said lapses/inadequacies are pointed out during the arguments, the directions are given to file an additional affidavit. This means more than one year is gone before or till the disposal of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 11.4 Since Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act comes into the picture only at the time of passing decree or anytime subsequent thereto, the litigants hardly invoke it. Major reasons for the same are as under: 11.4.1 The fatigue factor which sets in the litigants after fighting long drawn battles/and they say a ‘firm no’ to a second round of litigation. 11.4.2 Most claimants have parallel proceedings for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C.; Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act; or Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 11.4.3 Most of these litigations, either on account of fatigue factor or because good sense prevailed upon them with the intervention of Trial Courts, mediators and counsellors, get amicably resolved including settlement of issues pertaining maintenance, alimony, custody, etc. 11.4.3 Most of these litigations, either on account of fatigue factor or because good sense prevailed upon them with the intervention of Trial Courts, mediators and counsellors, get amicably resolved including settlement of issues pertaining maintenance, alimony, custody, etc. Suggested Solutions 11.5 Directions be given to all Courts handling maintenance claims, including Metropolitan Magistrates to adopt a uniform practice of applying Puneet Kaur (supra). 11.6 Better implementation of law settled by following authorities propound­ing guidelines:-- 11.6.1 Puneet Kaur v. Inderjeet Singh Sawhney (supra) -- The affidavit in terms of Puneet Kaur (supra) be filed by the petitioners/spouse along with petition itself and by the respondent/spouse on the first appearance along with reconciliation/ immediately after reconciliation efforts fail. 11.6.2 The way Trial Court checks the jurisdiction and other aspect at the first instance before issuing summons, the Trial Court must ensure that the affidavit of income answers all columns. Of course, if the affidavit contains false particulars, the other spouse can point out to the Court. 11.6.3 Every adjournment sought by any spouse, in filing or complying with Puneet Kaur (supra) should invite heavy fiscal consequences. 11.6.4 In Rajesh Chaudhary v. Nirmala Chaudhary, (2005)125 DLT 311=II (2005) DMC 814, this Court held that if the disposal of maintenance application is taking time, and the delay is causing hardship, ad interim maintenance should be granted in terms of admitted income. 11.6.5 In Sonia Khurana v. State, 132 (2006) DLT 7=II (2006) DMC 453, this Court held that long delays in disposal of maintenance claims causes grave hardship to claimant spouses. Hence, these proceedings need expeditious disposal. 12. Suggestions of Mr. Sunil Mittal, learned amicus curiae: 12.1 Every petition under Sections 9 to 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act should be accompanied by a detailed affidavit in terms of Puneat Kaur (supra). 12.2 At the time of issuing notice, the Court should direct the petitioner to deposit litigation expenses/ part litigation expenses for payment to the respondent. 12.3 The Court should examine the petitioner under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to ascertain the income and financial status of the petitioner and also the income and financial status of the respondent if the respondent is gainfully employed. 12.3 The Court should examine the petitioner under Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure and/or under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to ascertain the income and financial status of the petitioner and also the income and financial status of the respondent if the respondent is gainfully employed. 12.4 The Court should insist upon the respondent filing the written statement in terms of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure within a time bound manner. 12.5 The respondent desirous of claiming maintenance and permanent ali­mony can file a composite application under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 12.6 The application under Sections 24,25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act should be accompanied by the affidavit of income and assets in terms of Puneet Kaur (supra). 12.7 The response to the affidavit of the parties should be filed within 15 days. 12.8 The Hindu Marriage Act is a complete code which codifies all the rights, liabilities and obligations arising out of a matrimonial tie. Sections 24 to 27 are ancillary to the main proceedings under the Act and it would be appropriate to adjudicate them together to prevent proliferation of litigation, increase of cases and attendant trauma of the parties. Relevant Judgments Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 13. In Sonia Khurana & Anr. v. State & Anr. (supra), this Court held that maintenance petitions warrant expeditious disposal. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here under: “1. The petitioners are wife and child of the respondent No. 2 herein. According to the averments made in this petition, they have been deserted by the respondent No. 2. Petitioners, in these circumstances, have filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. which came up for preliminary hearing on 17.7.2006. The Court of learned MM has issued notice to the respondent No. 2, returnable on 25.5.2007, i.e., to a date which is more than 10 months after the first hearing. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 and her Counsel pleader for a shorter date, but the learned Magistrate refused to accede to this request of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. No doubt, the Magistrates are burdened with heavy work and, there­fore, normally it becomes difficult for the Magistrates to give short dates. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 and her Counsel pleader for a shorter date, but the learned Magistrate refused to accede to this request of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. No doubt, the Magistrates are burdened with heavy work and, there­fore, normally it becomes difficult for the Magistrates to give short dates. However, that would not justify issuing of notice for a date after 10 months. At the same time, nature of particular proceedings have to be borne in mind and if in a given case urgent hearing is required, preference is to be given to such case and short dates are to be given. In this case the petitioners state that they are destitutes and without any means of livelihood. It is for this reason that they have filed the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. they have also prayed for fixation of interim mainte­nance to get immediate support. Such a plea of the petitioners has to be adjudicated upon by the Courts without any delay and as expeditiously as possible. 3. No doubt, a Judge is supposed to decide the case before him/her according to law. Article 14 of the Constitution of India also stipulates equality before law and there cannot be any discrimination on the ground of sex, caste, religion, etc. Justice is open to all and nobdoy is disputing that. However, at the same time, we have to recognise that it does not happen in practice; or at least that positive step must be taken to ensure that there is real equality and fairness for all in the justice process. How a Judge arrives at the decision that is the decision making process and how a Judge treats those whose come before him/her are the factors which are as important as the decision itself. Whereas all cases need to be decided expeditiously as speedy justice is a part of ‘right to life’ enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India [see Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 : AIR 1979 SC 1360 ]. Such a need would be much more in the cases of socially and/or economically backward people and the cases raising social issues. The case of destitude wife / child seeking maintenance would definitely fall in this category. Such a need would be much more in the cases of socially and/or economically backward people and the cases raising social issues. The case of destitude wife / child seeking maintenance would definitely fall in this category. Therefore, in a case like this, issuing the notice on the preliminary hearing for a date after 10 months would itself be travesty of justice. More so, when the law also mandates that this aspect has to be considered and to be decided within a period of two months.” 14. In Rajesh Chaudhary v. Nirmala Chaudhary (supra), this Court held that ad interim maintenance should be awarded in terms of admitted income if the disposal of the maintenance application is taking time. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “14....in order to expedite the disposal of maintenance applications which early disposal is eventually in the interest of both the spouses and the children, the matrimonial Courts should follow the following proce­dure -- (i) When a notice for maintenance is issued the respondent should be directed to file a self-assessment of his income and what according to him is the admitted liability of maintenance payable by the said respondent. (ii) Document such as (a) Income-tax returns for last 3 years in cases where returns are filed (b) details of credit cards and club member­ships (c) details of phones, cell phone (d) details of bank accounts, fixed deposits, shares, bonds etc (e) details of immovable properties including family properties where the respondent has a share and self owned properties (f) details of vehicles and (f) last pay certificate should also be directed to be filed when available. (iii) When the case comes after notice and a self-assessment of income and the admitted liability of maintenance has been stated by the respondent, then without prejudice to the claimant’s plea of a higher amount payable, the said admitted amount and the arrears of the said admitted amount should be ordered on that very date or on any other date not later than 4 weeks from the returnable date while awaiting the determination of the claims made by the rival parties. 15. In Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 140 (2007) DLT 16=I (2007) DMC 815, this Court laid down the following principles for fixing the maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act -- “4. 15. In Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 140 (2007) DLT 16=I (2007) DMC 815, this Court laid down the following principles for fixing the maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act -- “4. Right to maintenance is an incident of the status from an estate of matrimony. Interim maintenance has an element of alimony, which expression in its strict sense means allowance due to wife from husband on separation. It has its basis in social conditions in United Kingdoms under which a married woman was economically depen­dent and almost in a position of tutelage to the husband and was intended to secure justice to her. 5. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act goes a step further inasmuch as it permits maintenance to be claimed by the husband even against the wife. 6. While considering a claim for interim maintenance, the Court has to keep in mind the status of the parties, reasonable wants of the applicant, the income and property of the applicant. Conversely, requirements of the non applicant, the income and property of the non applicant and additionally the other family members to be maintained by the non applicant have to be taken into all. Whilst it is important to insure that the maintenance awarded to the applicant is sufficient to enable the applicant to live in somewhat the same degree of comfort as in the matrimonial home, but it should not be so exorbitant that the non applicant is unable to pay. 7. Maintenance awarded cannot be punitive. It should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style she/he enjoyed in the matrimonial home. It should not expose the non applicant to unjust contempt or other coercive proceedings. On the other hand, maintenance should not be so low so as to make the order meaningless. 8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do not truthfully reveal their in­come. For self employed persons or persons employed in the unor­ganized sector, truthful income never surfaces. Tax avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the exception in this country. Therefore, in determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The Court has to take a general view. From the various judicial precedents, the under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken into consideration while deciding an applica­tion under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are -- 1. Therefore, in determining interim maintenance, there cannot be mathematical exactitude. The Court has to take a general view. From the various judicial precedents, the under noted 11 factors can be culled out, which are to be taken into consideration while deciding an applica­tion under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are -- 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 life style 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, Cr. PC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.” 16. In Jayant Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava, 181 (2011) DLT 602=III (2011) DMC 527, this Court laid down the factors to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the income of the spouse. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder— “12. It is settled position of law that a wife is entitled to live in a similar status as was enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that it should not be a case that one spouse lives in a life of comfort and luxury while the other spouse lives a life of deprivation, poverty. During the pendency of divorce proceed­ings the parties should be able to maintain themselves and should be sufficiently entitled to be represented in judicial proceedings. If in case the party is unable to do so on account of insufficient income, the other spouse shall be liable to pay the same [see jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun, reported at V (1998) SLT 551, III (1997) CLT 398 (SC), II (1997) DMC 338 (SC) and (1997) 7 SCC 7 ]. 13. If in case the party is unable to do so on account of insufficient income, the other spouse shall be liable to pay the same [see jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge, Dehradun, reported at V (1998) SLT 551, III (1997) CLT 398 (SC), II (1997) DMC 338 (SC) and (1997) 7 SCC 7 ]. 13. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, reported at 140 (2007) DLT 16 has culled out 11 factors, which can be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. 14. Further it has been noticed by the Courts that the tendency of the spouses in proceedings for maintenance is to not truthfully disclose their true income. However, in such cases some guesswork on the part of Court is permissible. 15. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Jasbir Kaur (Smt.) (supra), has also recognized the fact that spouses in the proceedings for maintenance do not truthfully disclose their true income and there­fore some guess work on the part of the Court is permissible. Further the Supreme Court has also observed that ?considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision. 16. Although there cannot be an exhaustive list of factors, which are to be considered in guessing the income of the spouses, but the order based on guess work cannot be arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision. 16. Although there cannot be an exhaustive list of factors, which are to be considered in guessing the income of the spouses, but the order based on guess work cannot be arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. While guessing the income of the spouse, when the sources of income are either not disclosed or not correctly disclosed, the Court can take into consideration amongst others the following factors -- (i) Life style of the spouse; (ii) The amount spent at the time of marriage and the manner in which marriage was performed; (iii) Destination of honeymoon; (iv) Ownership of motor vehicles; (v) Household facilities; (vi) Facility of driver, cook and other help; (vii) Credit cards; (viii) Bank account details; (ix) Club Membership; (x) Amount of Insurance Premium paid; (xi) Property or properties purchased; (xii) Rental income; (xiii) Amount of rent paid; (xiv) Amount spent on travel/holiday; (xv) Locality of residence; (xvi) Number of mobile phones; (xvii) Qualification of spouse; (xviii) School(s) where the child or children are studying when parties were residing together; (xix) Amount spent on fees and other expenses incurred; (xx) Amount spend on extra-curricular activities of children when parties were residing together; (xxi) Capacity to repay loan. 17. These are some of the factors, which may be considered by any Court in guesstimating or having a rough idea or to guess the income of a spouse. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts that one cannot ignore the fact that an Indian woman has been given an equal status under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and she has a right to live in dignity and according to the status of her husband. In this case, the stand taken by the Respondent with respect to his earning is unbelievable.” 17. In Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney (supra), this Court, while dealing with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directed both the parties to file detailed affidavits of their assets, income and expenditure. In this case, the stand taken by the Respondent with respect to his earning is unbelievable.” 17. In Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney (supra), this Court, while dealing with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directed both the parties to file detailed affidavits of their assets, income and expenditure. The relevant portion of the said judgment is held as under: 7....both the parties are directed to file their respective affidavits of assets, income and expenditure from the date of the marriage up to this date containing the following particulars -- 7.1 Personal Information (i) Educational qualifications, (ii) Professional qualifications, (iii) Present occupation, (iv) Particulars of past occupation, (v) Members of the family -- (a) Dependent. (b) Independent. 7.2 Income (i) Salary, if in service. (ii) Income from business/profession, if self employed, (iii) Particulars of all earnings since marriage. (iv) Income from other sources -- (a) Rent. (b) Interest on bank deposits and FDRs. (c) Other interest i.e. on loan, deposits, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF, etc. (d) Dividends. (e) Income from machinery, plant or furniture let on hire. (f) Gifts and Donations. (g) Profit on sale of movable/immovable assets. (h) Any other income not covered above. 7.3 Assets (i) Immovable properties -- “(a) Building in the name of self and its Fair Market Value (FMV)— — Residential. — Commercial. — Mortgage. — Given on rent. — Others. (b) Plot/land. (c) Leasehold property. (d) Intangible property e.g. patents, trade mark, design, goodwill. (e) Properties in the name of family members/HUF and their FMV. (ii) Movable properties— (a) Furniture and fixtures. (b) Plant and Machinery. (c) Livestock. (d) Vehicles i.e. car, scooter along with their brand and registration number. (iii) Investments— (a) Bank Accounts - Current or Savings. (b) Demat Accounts. (c) Cash. (d) FDRs, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF etc. (e) Stocks, shares, debentures, bonds, units and mutual funds. (f) LIC policy. (g) Deposits with Government and Non-Government entities, (h) Loan given to friends, relatives and others. (i) Telephone, mobile phone and their numbers. (j) TV, Fridge, Air Conditioner, etc. (k) Other household appliances. (l) Computer, Laptop. (m) Other electronic gadgets including I-pad, etc. (n) Gold, silver and diamond jewellery. (o) Silver utensils. (p) Capital in partnership firm, sole proprietorship firm. (q) Shares in the Company in which Director. (r) Undivided share in HUF property. (s) Booking of any plot, flat, membership in Co-op. (j) TV, Fridge, Air Conditioner, etc. (k) Other household appliances. (l) Computer, Laptop. (m) Other electronic gadgets including I-pad, etc. (n) Gold, silver and diamond jewellery. (o) Silver utensils. (p) Capital in partnership firm, sole proprietorship firm. (q) Shares in the Company in which Director. (r) Undivided share in HUF property. (s) Booking of any plot, flat, membership in Co-op. Group Hous­ing Society. (t) Other investments not covered by above items. (iv) Any other assets not covered above. 7.4 Liabilities (i) OD, CC, Term Loan from bank and other institutions, (ii) Personal/business loan (a) Secured. (b) Unsecured. (iii) Home loan. (iv) Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Property Tax. 7.5 Expenditure (i) Rent and maintenance including electricity, water and gas. (ii) Lease rental, if any asset taken on hire. (iii) Instalment of any house loan, car loan, personal loan, business loan, efc. (iv) Interest to bank or others. (v) Education of children including tuition fee. (vi) Conveyance including fuel, repair and maintenance of vehicle. Also give the average distance travelled every day. (vii) Premium of LIC, Mediclaim, house and vehicle policy. (viii) Premium of ULIP, Mutual Fund. (ix) Contribution to PPF, EPF, approved superannuation fund. (x) Mobile/landline phone bills. (xi) Club subscription and usage, subscription to newspapers, periodi­cals, magazines, etc. (xii) Internet charges/cable charges. (xiii) Household expenses including kitchen, clothing, etc. (xiv) Salary of servants, gardener, watchmen, etc. (xv) Medical/hospitalization expenses. (xvi) Legal/litigation expenses. (xvii) Expenditure on dependent family members. (xviii) Expenditure on entertainment (xix) Expenditure on travel, including outstation/foreign travel, busi­ness as well as personal. (xx) Expenditure on construction/renovation and furnishing of resi­dence/office. (xxi) Any other expenditure not covered above. 7.6 General Information regarding Standard of Living and Lifestyle -- (i) Status of family members. (ii) Credit/debit cards. (iii) Expenditure on marriage including marriage of family members. (iv) Expenditure on family functions including birthday of the chil­dren. (v) Expenditure on festivals. (vi) Expenditure on extra-curricular activities. (vii) Destination of honeymoon. (viii) Frequency of travel including outstation/foreign travel, business as well as personal. (ix) Mode of travel in city/outside city. (x) Mode of outstation/foreign travel including type of class. (xi) Category of hotels used for stay, official as well as personal, including type of rooms. (xii) Category of hospitals opted for medical treatment including type of rooms. (xiii) Name of school(s) where the child or children are studying, (xiv) Brand of vehicle, mobile and wrist watch, (xv) Value of jewellery worn. (xi) Category of hotels used for stay, official as well as personal, including type of rooms. (xii) Category of hospitals opted for medical treatment including type of rooms. (xiii) Name of school(s) where the child or children are studying, (xiv) Brand of vehicle, mobile and wrist watch, (xv) Value of jewellery worn. (xvi) Details of residential accommodation. (xvii) Value of gifts received, (xviii) Value of gifts given at family functions. (xix) Value of donations given. (xx) Particulars of credit card/debit card, its limit and usage. (xxi) Average monthly withdrawal from bank. (xxii) Type of restaurant visited for dining out. (xxiii) Membership of clubs, societies and other associations. (xxiv) Brand of alcohol, if consumed. (xxv) Particulars of all pending as well as decided cases including civil, criminal, labour, income tax, excise, property tax, MACT, etc. with parties name. 8. Both the parties are also directed to file, along with affidavit, copies of the documents relating to their assets, income and expenditure from the date of the marriage up to this date and more particularly the following: (i) Relevant documents with respect to income including Salary Certifi­cate, Form 16A, Income Tax Returns, certificate from the employer regarding cost to the company, balance sheet, etc. (ii) Audited accounts, if deponent is running business and otherwise, non-audited accounts i.e. balance sheets, profit and loss account and capital account. (iii) Statement of all bank accounts. (iv) Statement of Demat accounts. (v) Passport. (vi) Credit cards. (vii) Club membership cards. (viii) Frequent Flyer cards. (ix) PAN card. (x) Applications seeking job, in case of unemployed person. 9. The affidavit and documents be filed within a period of four weeks with an advance copy to opposite parties who shall file their response within two weeks thereafter. 11. Both the parties are directed to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing along with all original documents relating to their assets, income and expenditure.” Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 18. In B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy & Anr., II (2005) SLT 312=117 (2005) DLT 354 (SC)=I (2005) DMC 345 (SC)= (2005) 3 SCC 313 , the Supreme Court observed that on the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, the rights of the divorced wife are confined to Sections 25 and 27 of the Act. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “29.... The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “29.... Section 25 enables the Court to pass an order for providing alimony and maintenance in favour of the divorced wife. Section 27 enables the Court to make provisions in the decree in respect of a property that may belong to the wife or to both. On the status of wife being terminated by a i decree for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the rights of the divorced wife seem to be cribbed, confined and cabined by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and to the rights available under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act.” 19. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, V (2011) SLT 533=II (2011) DMC 754 (SC)= (2011) 13 SCC 112 , the Supreme Court laid down broad principles for determining permanent alimony. The relevant portion is as under: “12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent’s own income and other property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is further seen that the Court considering such claim has to consider all the above relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on various facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under the law and statute. The Courts also have to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles Courts have to be kept (sic’ keep) in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony.” 20. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles Courts have to be kept (sic’ keep) in mind while determining maintenance or permanent alimony.” 20. In Vidhya Viswanathan v. Kartik Balakrishnan, VIII (2014) SLT 563=S.L.P. (C) No. 25056 of 2012 decided on 22nd September, 2014, the Supreme Court while affirming the decree of divorce, awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 40,00,000/- to the wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Supreme Court took into consideration that wife was not working and would not be able to maintain herself. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “14. In view of the above principle of law laid down by this Court, and having considered the submissions of parties, and the evidence on record, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decree of divorce passed by the High Court on the ground of cruelty. However, we are conscious of the fact that the Appellant, as stated by her, was doing a job before her marriage, and she (Vidhya Vishwanathan) has stated as D.W.I that at present she is not doing any work. As such we think it just and proper to direct the Respondent to pay to the Appellant (wife) one time lump sum amount of alimony. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the economic status of the parties, a direction to the Respondent to pay Rs. 40 lakh (Rupees forty lakh only) as one time alimony to the Appellant, would meet the ends of justice, to which learned Counsel for the Respondent during the arguments stated that the Respon­dent is ready to pay the same. 15. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal affirming the decree of divorce granted by the High Court dissolving the marriage between the parties namely Karthik Balakrishnan and Vidhya Vishv Vanathan, with further direction under Section’ 25’ of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the Respondent shall pay to the Appellant Rs. 40 lakh (Rupees forty lakh only) as a lump sum amount of permanent alimony, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. No order as to costs.” 21. 40 lakh (Rupees forty lakh only) as a lump sum amount of permanent alimony, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. No order as to costs.” 21. In Chandrika v. Vijayakumar, (1996) 2 Mad LJ 439, the Family Court dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce which was challenged by the wife on various grounds inter alia that the Family Court did not even award permanent alimony to the wife and the child. Although no application was filed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Madras High Court held that the Court is competent to award permanent alimony even without any proper application. The Madras High Court confirmed the decree of divorce but granted permanent alimony to the wife and minor child. P. Sathasivam, J. as he then was, held as under: “13. The learned Counsel for the appellant finally contended that in spite of desertion by the wife, she is entitled maintenance for herself and for her child. The Court below rejected the request of the wife regarding mainte­nance on the simple ground that there has been no claim either for maintenance or for custody of the child. It is true that as per Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on application made to the Court either by the wife or by the husband, the Court may pass an order of maintenance at the time of passing decree for divorce. Even though Section 25 says that the maintenance amount has to be fixed on the basis of ‘an application, even without an application, on the basis of oral request, it is open to the Court below to pass an order for maintenance to either party. In support of the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon Jayakrishna Panigrahi v. Surekha Panigrahi, I (1996) DMC 335 (DB)=AIR 1996 A.P. 19. In support of the above proposition, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon Jayakrishna Panigrahi v. Surekha Panigrahi, I (1996) DMC 335 (DB)=AIR 1996 A.P. 19. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that ‘Despite the dissolution of marriage at the instance of husband, it would also be a fit case to grant maintenance to the wife, even in absence of formal application before the Court’.” In 1995 1 M.L.J. 624, Chandra Rajan v. Radha alias Mahalakshmi, Raju, J., while interpreting Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has held that -- ‘The provision of Section 25 confers an enabling power upon the Court itself while granting divorce or judicial separation to also pass an order for the maintenance of the wife. The contemplated applica­tion as noticed supra to be made by such parties has to be limited and confined to the case when the Court, while disposing of the main petition has not thought of passing an order for grant of maintenance and was silent on the said issue and not otherwise, becomes essential or necessary to separately make an application even when the Court chooses to decide about the same as part of the main petition, particularly as in this case by also disposing of simultaneously an application filed by the wife for maintenance along with main petition for divorce.’ In the said case an objection was taken that without an application for permanent alimony and maintenance the Court has no power to order payment under Section 25. After reading the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Act along side with Section 25, Raju, J., has held that— ‘The plea taken for the petitioner that unless a separate application is, be in during the course or at the time of passing the decree, also filed for permanent alimony and maintenance, the Court could not have ordered for the payment under Section 25 of the Act is incor­rect.’ We are also in entire agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge in the said judgment. The conjoint reading of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act clearly shows that during the disposal of the main petition for / divorce, it is open to the Court to pass appropriate orders for alimony or maintenance even without any proper application. The conjoint reading of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act clearly shows that during the disposal of the main petition for / divorce, it is open to the Court to pass appropriate orders for alimony or maintenance even without any proper application. It is brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the appellant that during the course of arguments, both parties have filed “written submissions before the Family Court for the convenience of the Court. In the written submissions filed by the wife/respondent before the Family Court, there is a specific plea for maintenance for herself and for her minor son aged about 11 years. We have also perused the same and the necessary contentions are there in para 6 of the written submissions filed by the wife. Hence, in view of the above fact as well as the law enunciated in the above referred decisions we are of the opinion that the wife and minor child are entitled for maintenance.” 22. In Umarani v. D. Vivekannandan, II (2000) DMC 422= 2000 (2) CTC 449 , the Madras High Court held that a written application is not mandatory and the permanent alimony can be awarded even on an oral prayer. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “10. ...It is true that Section 25 of the Act contemplates an application for the said purpose. When the lower Court has not disposed of Section 24 application in time and has disposed of along with the main application, it should have disposed of the application under Section 25 also. There­fore, one more litigation could be avoided and on the basis of very same order, the maintenance could be provided for the wife and child. From the conduct of the respondent, it is clear that he will not pay the maintenance which is legally due to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, asking the petitioner to file another application under Section 25 or asking to file a separate suit and again seeking indulgence of the Court below will be harsh. The Act also does not say that there should be a written application. It only says that an application made to it. It can also be on the basis of oral application. Under these circumstances, I feel that the order of the lower Court requires modification when the averments in the affidavit remain unchallenged.” 23. The Act also does not say that there should be a written application. It only says that an application made to it. It can also be on the basis of oral application. Under these circumstances, I feel that the order of the lower Court requires modification when the averments in the affidavit remain unchallenged.” 23. In Govindrao Ranoji Musale v. Sou. Anandibai And Anr., AIR 1976 Bom 433 , the Bombay High Court observed that Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is a piece of social welfare legislation. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “7: ...Secondly, it must be remembered that Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is a piece of social welfare legislation. One of the admitted aims of this legislation was to better the lot of women in Hindu society, which it was felt by legislature needed amelioration. It was with this end in view that certain rights were conferred on Hindu Women by the Hindu Marriage Act as well as certain other measures, like the Act of 1956.” 24. In Geeta Satish Gokarna v. Satish Shankarrao Gokarna, AIR 2004 Bom 345 , the Bombay High Court held that permanent alimony and maintenance are a larger part of the right to life. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “7. ...as remarked by Lord Atkin “the wife’s right to future maintenance is a matter of public concern which she cannot barter away.... 8.... permanent alimony and maintenance are a larger part of the right to life. These provisions have been included to enable a person unable to maintain herself...” 25. In Kitula Singh v. Rajeshwar Singh, I (2010) DMC 447=(2010) 4 Mah LJ 797, the Bombay High Court examined the scope of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act and held as under -- “11. The distinction between the law laid down under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is distinct and clear. It is so because of the specific circumstances that the Court would require to see at the time of each of these applications. It may be clarified that for considering the application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Mar­riage Act, which is decided upon affidavits of the parties alone, the Court cannot and would not consider the precise income, standard of living, conduct of the parties, other properties and other circumstances of the case. It may be clarified that for considering the application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Mar­riage Act, which is decided upon affidavits of the parties alone, the Court cannot and would not consider the precise income, standard of living, conduct of the parties, other properties and other circumstances of the case. The amount that would have to be granted for the maintenance of the wife would be for her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings. That amount would be granted if she does not have income sufficient for her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings. The ambit for grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 is, therefore, far narrower than the ambit under Section 25. It is the distinction between the two Sections which is required to be understood for the Court to grant the maintenance amounts thereunder. 12—Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act as aforesaid, the entire evidence relating to the income, properties of both the parties and their conduct and circumstances would be and can be seen. That is because the evidence is led in that behalf at the time of final hearing” 26. In Silla Jagannadha Prasad @ Ramu v. Silla Lalitha Kumar, I (1988) DMC 319 (SC)= AIR 1989 AP 8 , the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a respondent can invoke Section 25 by filing a counter claim under Section 23-A of the Act: “8.... This section enables the opposite party not only to oppose the relief of divorce, judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights, but also to make a counter claim for any relief under the Act......The words used are ‘any relief’ which include a relief under Section 25 and if the opposite party makes a counter-claim for the relief under Section 25 while opposing the petitioners claim for divorce this Section empowers the Court to grant such relief. The word ‘any relief’ occurring in Section 23-A has been held to include not only the reliefs mentioned in Sections 9 to 13, but also a relief under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The word ‘any relief’ occurring in Section 23-A has been held to include not only the reliefs mentioned in Sections 9 to 13, but also a relief under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. xxx xxx xxx 10.....The intention of the legislature is clear that in as much as the matrimonial Court has been seized of the matter and has gone into the merits of the controversy between the parties and know Who had commit­ted the wrong and where the justice lay should be empowered to make an order of permanent alimony....” Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 27. In Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam v. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam, II (1997) DMC 495 (SC)=1997) 7 SCC 500, the Supreme Court held that Section 27 provides an alternative remedy to the wife to recover the property covered by Section 27 to avoid further litigation. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “8. ...On a plain reading of the section, it becomes obvious that the matrimonial Court trying any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has the jurisdiction to make such provision in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented ‘at or about the time of marriage’ which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. This section provides an alternate remedy to the wife so that she can recover the property which is covered by the Section, by including it in the decree in the matrimonial proceedings, without having to take recourse to the filing of a separate civil suit and avoid further litigation. In the instant case, we find that the wife had laid claim to certain items of jewellery and in her deposition, she had mentioned the items of jewellery which she had received ‘at or about the time of her marriage’ and, in particular, had mentioned the items of jewellery which were given to her by her father at the time of the marriage. xxx xxx xxx 11. ...In our opinion, the Courts have not gone into the question in its correct perspective. The trial Court proceeded to negative the claim of the respondent-wife by holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the property rights of the parties and gave no opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. ...In our opinion, the Courts have not gone into the question in its correct perspective. The trial Court proceeded to negative the claim of the respondent-wife by holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the property rights of the parties and gave no opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The finding of the trial Court clearly overlooked the provisions of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act which unmistakably vests the jurisdiction in the Court to pass an order, at the time of passing a decree in a matrimonial cause, in respect of the property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to the husband and the wife. The learned Single Judge also fell in complete error while concurring with the view of the trial Court to say that there was no evidence on the record to show that the property claimed by the wife was presented to her at the time of her marriage. The learned Single Judge failed to take notice of the deposition of the respon­dent in that behalf. Moreover, the property, as contemplated by Section 27 is not the property which is given to the wife at the time of marriage only. It includes the property given to the parties before or after marriage also, so long as it is relatable to the marriage. The expression ?at or about the time of marriage? has to be properly construed to include such property which is given at the time of marriage as also the property given before or after marriage to the parties to become their ‘joint property’, implying thereby that the property can be traced to have connection with the marriage. All such property is covered by Section 27 of the Act.” 28. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides an alternative remedy to the wife. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers a Court while deciding a matrimo­nial dispute to also pass a decree in respect of joint properties of husband and wife. This Section provides a civil remedy to an aggrieved wife and does not in any way take away her right to file a criminal complaint if the property belonging to her is criminally misappropriated by her husband. 29. This Section provides a civil remedy to an aggrieved wife and does not in any way take away her right to file a criminal complaint if the property belonging to her is criminally misappropriated by her husband. 29. In Sangeeta v. Sanjay Bansal, 90 (2001) DLT 632 (DB)=I (2001) DMC 673 (SC)=AIR 2001 Delhi 267, the Division Bench of this Court examined the scope of Section 27 and held as under: “5. The section empowers the Court to make such provision in the decree in respect of property presented at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both, husband and wife. The expression, ‘presented at or about the time of marriage’ suggests that such property must be connected with marriage and then it naturally comes to belong to both parties because all marks/areas of distinction/division are obliterated by the marriage....” 30. In Nandani Sanjiv Ahuja v. Sanjiv Birsen Ahuja, AIR 1988 Bom 239 , the Bombay High Court held that Section 27 provides for sharing of properties received by the spouses, individually or collectively as presents at or about the time of marriage and which has come to be as a way of life in their joint use in their day-to­day living and thus may belong jointly to them. Such joint belongings require the attention of Court for proper apportionment. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “8... .Whereas Section 27 deals with the property belonging to the spouses, Section 26 deals with their children and Section 25 with permanent alimony and maintenance that may be awarded in favour of a party. The power of the Court to pass an order under these Sections is discretionary. Obviously the object in enacting these sections is to ensure severance in possibly all respects between those spouses, who, as the Court thinks, cannot live together. The intention behind framing these Sections is to make every possible attempt to settle all possible disputes between such spouses and that too once for all so that there should not be again an opportunity to enter into fresh litigation with each other. Section 27 does not envisage deciding any question as to the title of the property involved therein. The intention behind framing these Sections is to make every possible attempt to settle all possible disputes between such spouses and that too once for all so that there should not be again an opportunity to enter into fresh litigation with each other. Section 27 does not envisage deciding any question as to the title of the property involved therein. Keeping in view the above legislative intent and the plain lan­guage used in Section 27 the principles that emerge therefrom are as follows -- (i) The power of the matrimonial Court is discretionary and it is not incumbent on the Court to make provision in the decree with regard to disposal of the property. (ii) It must be a matrimonial proceeding pending under the Act and an application for disposal of the property must be made before the decision of the proceeding. (iii) The provision to be made must be just and proper as the Court deems having regard to the adjustment of equities between the parties and surrounding circumstances. (iv) The property contemplated must be such as was presented at a time or stage which is in close proximity of the marriage, whether presented before or after the marriage. (v) The property so presented may either be to the wife, husband or both and at the time the Court is required to exercise discretion the property may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.” 31. In Surinder Kaurv. Madan Gopal Singh, AIR 1980 P&H 334 , the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the scope of Section 27 and held as under: “This first appeal involves the problems of salvage of a broken marriage. To what extent can the matrimonial Court indulge in the rescue operation and the sphere of its activity is the point of a combat between the warring divorced spouses involving disposal of property. xxx xxx xxx 4.....It would seem that the object of studding this section in the fabric of the Hindu Marriage Act is intended to pass consequential orders in relation to certain properties between the parties while dealing with any proceedings under the Act and to make provision of the nature in the decree to be passed in those proceedings. Obviously, an application for the purpose must be made before the proceedings terminate and the order can be made at the time of the passing of the decree. Obviously, an application for the purpose must be made before the proceedings terminate and the order can be made at the time of the passing of the decree. The sequence in which the said section appears in the statute is, after the provision for the passage of decree in Section 23 of the Act and then to provide remedially as well in the terms of granting permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25, deciding the custody of the children under Section 26 and to dispose of property jointly belonging to both the husband and the wife under Section 27, so as to ameliorate the lot of the spouse or spouses left bruised by a broken or a shattered marriage. It would also seem that Section 27 does not envisage deciding any question as to the title of the property involved therein or extending to all the properties of the spouses. It is couched in such a language so as to narrow its ambit within a small sphere. Analytically, the Section pours out the following principles -- (i) it must be a matrimonial proceeding pending under the Act before the Court and an application for disposal of property must be made before the decision of the proceeding; (ii) it is not incumbent on the Court to make provision in the decree with regard to disposal of property and it is left to its judicial discretion; (iii) the provision so made, if any, must be just and proper as the Court deems having regard to the adjustment of the equities between the parties and all surrounding material circumstances; (iv) the order would envelope only that property which was presented at or about the time of the marriage, which means not only presented at the marriage but also at a time either prior to or after the marriage. That must be in close proximity of the time of the marriage and not to those made outside the extending limit of that time; (v) the property so presented may either be to the wife or the husband or both; and (vi) at the time the Court is required to exercise its discretion, the property may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife. 5.....Now it is well understood that the word ‘belong’ necessarily does not reflect title to the property in the sense of ownership. 5.....Now it is well understood that the word ‘belong’ necessarily does not reflect title to the property in the sense of ownership. It only denotes connection with property land is a term connecting a’ person with his possessions. It appears to me that the property thus presented to the spouses within the afore-explained time limit, may fall jointly to belong to both the husband and the wife, irrespective of the title in those properties to be vesting in one or the other, or both. To give an earthly example, a saree presented by the husband, or anyone else to the wife, may or may not involve transfer of title to the saree to the wife, but will belong to her exclusively and not jointly to both the husband and the wife, as the very nature of the garment so suggests. Similarly, a suit presented to the husband in the same fashion would be exclusively belonging to the husband. Properties and articles presented from any source and to any one of them which by the very nature of the present or by intention of the donor, or by tacit agreement of spouses, has come to be jointly in use by both the husband and the wife, can well be said to belong jointly to both of them. An earthly example of such incident can be that of a set of dining table and chairs for joint user in the matrimonial home irrespective of the fact as to which spouse received it as a present within that allocated time. The said dining table and chairs would obviously be joint belonging of both the husband and the wife and capable of being subjected to orders under Section 27 of the Act. 6.....If any parity is permissible, it can be drawn with the principle underlying Section 25 of the Act. Each spouse’s earning capacity and other property, despite title thereto, is taken into account while equitably apportioning the income of both the spouse’s in such a manner so as to keep the less provided one adequately maintained at the cost of the other having regard to their post-marital social status. Each spouse’s earning capacity and other property, despite title thereto, is taken into account while equitably apportioning the income of both the spouse’s in such a manner so as to keep the less provided one adequately maintained at the cost of the other having regard to their post-marital social status. In the same way, Section 27 of the Act provides for sharing of that property which the spouses received individually or collectively as presents, at or about the time of the marriage and which had come to be, as a way of life, in their joint use in their day to day living and thus ‘belongs’ for the purpose. If matrimony is disrupted, such jointly belonging articles would require the attention of the Court to be apportioned between the spouses as measure of remedial relief. xxx xxx xxx 12.....It took more than five years to finalise the proceedings before the Court below. Such lengthy trial in a matrimonial matter is uncalled for and contrary to the spirit of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended. Matrimonial jurisdiction is of a special nature and deserves special attention. Relegat­ing such proceedings to the position of ordinary civil proceedings would not only frustrate the object of the legislation but would lead to sorrowful results. In India where Hindu Marriage is by and large arranged by others than the spouses themselves, its breakage causes ripples in members of the society. It is one of the reasons why most of the judgments rendered by matrimonial Courts, which fall squarely within Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, are judgments ‘in rem’ affecting the world at large. If a contested issue of disposal of property were to engage the attention of the matrimonial Court predominating other proceedings regarding which decree is sought, then the decision cannot be rendered with promptitude. The disposal of property as envisaged under Section 27 can only become part of the decree, subject to other conditions fulfilling, if it is capable of being settled without consuming much time so as not to entail delay in passage of the decree. But if the Court finds itself confronted with regular contest from the tenor of pleadings, the divergence of views and the anticipated quantity of evidence, it would well be within its right to refuse passing orders regarding disposal of property as a part of the decree. But if the Court finds itself confronted with regular contest from the tenor of pleadings, the divergence of views and the anticipated quantity of evidence, it would well be within its right to refuse passing orders regarding disposal of property as a part of the decree. The disposal of property matter cannot outweigh the main proceedings before the Court regarding which it is required to pass a decree.” Conclusion 32. On careful consideration of the suggestions given by the learned amicus curiae, this Court is of the view that in order to implement Sections 21-B, 23-A and 24 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act in their true letter and spirit, all petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act should be accompanied by an affidavit of assets, income and expenditure of the petitioner. If the spouse claiming the maintenance is petitioner, application under Section 24 be filed along with the petition whereas if the spouse claiming maintenance is respondent, the application under Section 24 along with the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure of the respondent be filed within 30 days of the service of the notice. The response to the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure of the respondent be filed by the petitioner within two weeks and the Trial Court should thereafter take up the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for hearing. With respect to Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the well settled principles need to be followed. Directions 33. In order to implement Sections 21-B, 23-A and Sections 24 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act in their true letter and spirit, the Courts below dealing with the matrimonial cases shall consider implementing the following suggestions: 33.1 Matrimonial jurisdiction is of a special nature and deserves a special attention. Lengthy trial in matrimonial proceedings is uncalled for and contrary to the spirit of Hindu Marriage Act. 33.2 The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure of both the parties are necessary to determine the rights of the parties under Sections 24 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, should be filed with the pleadings in order to curb the delay and expedite the trial in terms of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 33.2 The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure of both the parties are necessary to determine the rights of the parties under Sections 24 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, should be filed with the pleadings in order to curb the delay and expedite the trial in terms of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 33.3 All petitions including petitions under Sections 9 to 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act shall be accompanied with an affidavit of assets, income and expen­diture of the petitioner. The affidavit shall contain all the particulars mentioned in para 7 and shall be accompanied by the documents mentioned in para 8 of Puneet Kaur (supra). The affidavit shall also contain the particulars of the properties mentioned in Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 33.4 At the time of issuing notice, the Court shall consider directing the petitioner to deposit such sum, as the Court may consider appropriate, on the basis of petitioner’s affidavit, for payment to the respondent towards litigation/part litigation expenses. 33.5 If the petitioner claims maintenance, application under Section 24 be filed along with the petition. However, if respondent claims maintenance, the application under Section 24 along with the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure (as mentioned in para 33.3 above) be filed within 30 days of the service of the notice along with the response to the petitioner’s affidavit. 33.6 The response to the respondent’s affidavit of assets, income and expen­diture be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter and the case be listed for disposal of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 33.7 The Court may decline to take the petition, written statement, application for maintenance and its reply on record unless they are accompanied by the aforesaid affidavit or affidavit is already on record. 33.8 The Court shall ensure that the filing of the affidavits by the parties is not reduced to a mere ritual or formality. The Court shall scrutinize the affidavit threadbare and may decline to take the same on record unless it contains all the particulars mentioned in para 7 of Puneet Kaur (supra) and Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and is accompanied by the documents mentioned in para 8 of Puneet Kaur (supra). The Court shall scrutinize the affidavit threadbare and may decline to take the same on record unless it contains all the particulars mentioned in para 7 of Puneet Kaur (supra) and Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and is accompanied by the documents mentioned in para 8 of Puneet Kaur (supra). 33.9 If a party has made concealment or false statement in his/her affidavit, the opposite party shall disclose the same in his/her response on affidavit along with the material to show concealment or false statement. 33.10 Whenever the opposite party discloses sufficient material to show concealment or false statement in the affidavit, the Court may consider examining the deponent of the affidavit under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to elicit the truth. The principles relating to the scope and powers of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act have been summarized in Ved Prakash Kharbanda v. Vimal Bindal, (2013) 198 DLT 555 which may be referred to. 33.11 The application under Section 24 should be decided as expeditiously as possible otherwise the very object of the proviso to Section 24 would be defeated. 33.12 If the disposal of maintenance application is taking time, and the delay is causing hardship, some ad interim maintenance should be granted to the claimant spouse on the basis of admitted income of the respondent. 33.13 There may be cases where one of the spouse has sufficient means of sustenance and, therefore, the application under Section 24 is not warranted at the initial stage. In such cases, the concerned spouse need not file the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act but shall specifically mention this fact in the pleadings i.e. petition/written statement as the case may be. In such cases, the written statement be filed by the respondent within 30 days of the service of summons. However, this would not preclude the filing of the application under Section 24 at a later stage if the circumstances so warrant. 33.14 The aforesaid procedure shall be followed in all cases relating to maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act as well as Section 125, Cr.P.C. 33.15 With respect to Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court shall consider the well settled principles laid down in the relevant judicial pro­nouncements. 34. 34. The Courts below dealing with matrimonial cases shall give their response as to whether the above suggestions have curbed the delay in disposal of matrimo­nial cases and if so, to what extent. The Courts below shall also give their suggestions to further curb the delay and to implement Sections 21-B and 24 to 27 in their true letter and spirit. The Courts below shall submit their response/ suggestions by 15th December, 2014 through their District and Sessions Judge to the Registrar General who shall place them before this Court. The other suggestions of the learned amicus curiae shall be considered on the next date of hearing. 35. List for considering the response/suggestions of the Courts below as well as other suggestions of the learned amicus curiae on 18th December, 2014. 36. A copy of this order be sent to the District and Sessions Judges who shall circulate the same to all Courts dealing with matrimonial cases. A copy of this order be also sent to the Delhi Judicial Academy. 37. Copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for the parties as well as to the learned amicus curiae under the signature of the Court Master, Ordered accordingly.