( 2025:HHC:28023 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 521 of 2024 Decided on: 19.08.2025 ____________________________________________________ Salochana @ Sonu ……….. petitioner Versus Dhiraj Sharma ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Kanwar Bhupinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 05.06.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), District Shimla in CNR HPSH 10000392022, CIS Registration No. 108/2022, whereby in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance Pendent Lite and expenses of litigation, the present petitioner has been awarded an amount of 5,000/- ₹ per month from the date of filing of application and a lump sum amount of 20,000/- is ordered to be paid towards the litigation ₹ expenses. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:28023 ) 3. The order-sheets with respect to the way and manner, in which the proceedings before the learned Trial Court have proceeded (page Nos. 49 to 59 of the file) have been appended as Annexure P-5. 4. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that insofar as the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2021) 2 SCC 324, titled Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr qua filing of affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities qua the respondent is concerned, the same have been observed more in their breach rather in their observance. The guideline laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this respect is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference as under:- “72.3(c) The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings. On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;” 5. Other than the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to refer to the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the present respondent before the Courts below. A specific reference to Para 2 ( 2025:HHC:28023 ) No. 9 of the same would be relevant, which is reproduced as under:- “9 Furnish copies of bank statement of all accounts for the last 3 years. That I am having my Saving Bank Account with SBI Pantha Ghati and another account with HDFC Bank Mehli.” 6. From the same, it is evident that the disclosure in the affidavit filed by the respondent qua the bank accounts of the respondent are incomplete. The remedy qua the same is provided in Para No. 72.6 (f) of Rajnesh’s Case (supra). The same is reproduced for ready reference:- “72.6(f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned.” 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 i.e. Annexure P-6, in the case at hand is based on incomplete information. Hence, in view thereof, the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 is set aside. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 25.09.2025. On the same date respondent would furnish details of his bank account as is required in terms of Para No. 9 3 ( 2025:HHC:28023 ) of the affidavit of disclosure. Pendent Lite maintenance shall be redetermined based on the filing of the same. Till the re- determination of the pendent lite maintenance happens the respondent is directed to pay 5,000/- per month to the present ₹ petitioner. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Subject to the convenience of the Court the fresh re- determination of the pendent lite maintenance shall be done at the earliest. Guidelines laid down in Rajnesh’s Case (supra) be implemented in the letter and spirit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge August 19, 2025 Shamsh Tabrez 4