Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010157692025 2026:GAU-AS:1860 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/162/2025 ASHIM GHOSH S/O LATE PARIMAL GHOSH, R/O WARD NO. 10, DHEKIAJULI TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- DHEKIAJULI, DIST- SONITPUR (ASSAM) VERSUS SMT. MANISHA GHOSH D/O GAUTAM MAZUMDAR, W/O ASHIM GHOSH, R/O VILL- WARD NO. 10, DHEKIAJULI TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- DHEKIAJULI, DIST- SONITPUR (ASSAM), PIN-784110 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D P BORAH, MR U GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MR. SURAJIT DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. D. P. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Tezpur at Sonitpur (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), in Misc (J) Case No. 41/2023, whereby the petitioner/husband was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month in total to the respondent/wife from the date of filing the petition till further orders along with costs of Rs. 30,000/-. 3. The principle contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned trial court decided the application for interim maintenance without the respondent/wife filing an affidavit of disclosure of income, assets and liabilities in clear contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr.,, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite a written objection having been filed before the trial court alleging an illicit relationship of the respondent/wife, which was stated to be evident from the Annexure-I (FIR) lodged by the respondent/wife herself before the jurisdictional police station, the trial court failed to consider the said objection while passing the impugned order. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits the materials on record clearly indicate that the respondent/wife has no independent source of income and is residing with her minor daughter, and therefore requires to be maintained by her husband. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the contending parties and Page No.# 3/4 have also perused the material available on record. 7. In Rajnesh (supra), the Apex Court has categorically held that for an objective assessment of the quantum of interim maintenance, it is imperative that both parties file affidavits of disclosure of income, assets, and liabilities. In order to ensure uniformity, the Apex Court framed comprehensive guidelines in exercise of powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, mandating the filing of such affidavits in all maintenance proceedings, subject to limited exceptions. 8. In the present case, it is undisputed that while the petitioner/husband has filed his affidavit of disclosure showing a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-, the respondent/wife has not filed any affidavit disclosing her income, assets or liabilities. 9. The learned trial court, notwithstanding the absence of the mandatory affidavit from the respondent/wife, proceeded to direct payment of interim maintenance. Such an approach is clearly contrary to the binding directions issued by the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra). 10. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 11. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the learned trial court with a direction to obtain the affidavit of disclosure of income, assets, and liabilities from the respondent/wife and thereafter, upon affording a reasonable opportunity for hearing to both parties, decide the issue of interim maintenance afresh by a reasoned order within a period of 1 (one) month from the date fixed for appearance. Page No.# 4/4 12. It has been submitted at the bar that the matter is presently fixed before the trial court on 21.02.2026. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 21.02.2026 without further notice. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant