Filing Disclosure Affidavits Mandatory for Maintenance Applications: Orissa High Court

Post By 24law
February 15, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has reiterated that the filing of disclosure affidavits is a mandatory requirement for deciding applications for maintenance, in line with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha & Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. The Court set aside an order of the Family Court, Khurda, which had directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month each to his wife and son under Section 125 of the CrPC, and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

Case Background

The case involved a revision petition filed against the judgment dated 22.07.2023 by the Family Court, Khurda, in Criminal Petition No. 431 of 2017. The Family Court had directed the petitioner, Nabaghana Sahoo, to pay maintenance despite neither party having submitted the mandatory disclosure affidavit prescribed by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra).

Court Observations and Decision

The single bench of Justice G. Satapathy observed: “...it appears that neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit as mandated in Rajnesh (supra), but facts remain that the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra) has issued a slew of directions in the form of guidelines making it mandatory for the Petitioner-Applicant to file disclosure affidavit at the time of bringing a proceeding for maintenance....”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's directive that states: “The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;”

“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...”

Arguments by the Counsels

The petitioner, represented by Advocate A. Mishra, argued that the Family Court had erred in passing the maintenance order without first ensuring compliance with the disclosure affidavit requirement. He submitted: “Admittedly neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha; (2021), which is the mandatory requirement for deciding application for maintenance under different provisions of law.” Furthermore, the petitioner contended that his financial burden was excessive. His monthly salary was Rs. 42,000, yet he had been ordered to pay Rs. 41,000 per month in three different maintenance proceedings: Rs. 20,000 under the PWDV Act, Rs. 1,000 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and Rs. 20,000 under Section 125 CrPC.

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel, Advocate A. Swain, submitted that although the disclosure affidavits were not filed, the Family Court had relied on relevant materials to determine maintenance. However, the High Court disagreed with this approach and held that the trial court had failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure established by the Supreme Court.

Justice Satapathy referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma [(2023) SCC Online SC 1451], which emphasized strict adherence to the guidelines issued in Rajnesh (supra). The Apex Court had criticized lower courts for neglecting to enforce disclosure affidavit requirements, stating: “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.”

Directions by the High Court

Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court remitted the matter for fresh disposal, directing the trial court to:

Ensure both parties submit their disclosure affidavits before proceeding with the case.

Allow the parties an opportunity to lead evidence regarding their financial status.

Expedite the matter and dispose of it within two months.

“Since the maintenance proceeding is pending between the parties from the year 2017, the learned trial Court is hereby requested to dispose of the aforesaid proceeding after remand as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”