2025:HHC:22154 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Rev. (FC) No. 51 of 2024 Date of decision: 10.07.2025 Prithu Ram …Petitioner Versus Baby Pratigya & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Legal-aid- Counsel. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) It is rather unfortunate that despite the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, decided as far as back on 04.11.2020, and the serious concern shown thereafter by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aditi @ Mithi vs. Jitesh (2023) 15 Scale 221, the learned Family Court has still proceeded to grant interim maintenance without there being any affidavit on record filed by the parties. 2. The brief facts given rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondents-minors, filed an application under Section 125(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of interim maintenance from the petitioner. 2 2025:HHC:22154 3. The learned Family Court without calling for the affidavit and that too solely on the principle that the grant of maintenance is to prevent the mother of the applicants (respondents herein) from vagrancy and destitution, proceeded to grant interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month to each of the respondents, from the date of filing of the application, till the final disposal of the main petition. 4. As observed above, no affidavits of assets and liabilities were filed by either of the parties to the proceedings, but then in Rajnesh case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued mandatory guidelines for deciding the claim of maintenance under different provisions of law, as would be evident from para 72 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers Under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India: 72.1(a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/ District Court/ Magistrate's Court, as the case may be, throughout the country; 3 2025:HHC:22154 72.2(b) The Applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of 72.3(c) The Respondent must submit the reply alongwith 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 basis of the Affidavit filed by the Applicant and the pleadings on record; 72.4(d) The above format may be modified by the concerned Court, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the concerned Court, 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 concerned Court 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 XI of the Code of Civil Procedure; On filing of the Affidavit, the Court may invoke the provisions of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 165 of the Evidence Act 1872, if 4 2025:HHC:22154 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 17-11-2020 (Page 26 of 48) www.manupatra.com Library Dwarka 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, and for contempt of Court. 72.9 (i) In case the parties belong to the Economically Weaker Sections ("EWS"), or are living Below the Poverty Line ("BPL"), or are casual labourers, the requirement of filing the Affidavit would be dispensed with. 72.10(j) The concerned Family Court/District Court/ Magistrate's Court must make an endeavour to decide the I.A. 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. 72.2(k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family Court.” 5. The further question as to what would be the consequences for non filing of the disclosure affidavit, which are 5 2025:HHC:22154 mandatory in nature after the decision in Rajnesh case (supra), this Court considers it useful to refer to the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aditi case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15 observed as under:- “15.Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of judgment of this Court in Rajnesh’s case (supra), which was directed to be 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.” 6 2025:HHC:22154 6. As observed above, the judgment in Rajnesh case (supra), was delivered on 04.11.2020 and the guidelines therein have been circulated to all the Courts in India for compliance but it has not been followed in this case while passing the impugned judgment. When the principles set out in a decision are directed to be followed mandatorily, all the Courts are under obligation to follow such guidelines but in this case, the learned Family Court having not followed the provisions of the guidelines issued in Rajnesh case (supra), requires the matter to be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with the law by complying with the guidelines as set out not only in Rajnesh case (supra) but thereafter in Aditi case (supra), especially, the format of the affidavit as set out in the aforesaid decision. 7. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed and the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2024, passed by the learned Family Court is hereby set aside. 8. Ergo, the matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is however, made clear that the learned Family Court 9. It is further made clear that the learned Family Court may receive the disclosure affidavit(s) of the parties and provide opportunity to file counter affidavit(s) by taking into consideration the aforesaid mandatory guidelines. 7 2025:HHC:22154 10. Since the maintenance proceedings are pending adjudication between the parties for the last two years, the learned Family Court is hereby requested to dispose of the aforesaid proceedings after remand, as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31.08.2025. 11. The parties/counsels shall appear before the learned Family Court on 17.07.2025. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 10th July, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)