Justice Rajesh Bindal reiterated judgement of Justice Indu Malhotra on procedure to be followed for grant of maintenance

With regard to the manner in which maintenance is payable under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the manner in which maintenance payable is to be assessed, Supreme Court has provided detailed guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. The Court had noticed that the terms of maintenance are decided on the basis of pleadings of parties and on the basis of some amount of guess work. It recognised that both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. The tendency of the wife is to exaggerate her needs, whereas the husband tends to conceal his actual income. Therefore, the Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance.

Pursuant to the directions of the Court, on June 25, 2024, Pradeep Kumar Malik, Registrar General, Patna High Court wrote to all the District and Sessions Judges and Principal Judges of Family Courts of Bihar to ensure compliance of order dated November 4, 2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 and Judgment dated November 6, 2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023 by Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Supreme Court. The High Court had drawn their attention towards Court's letters nos. 47051 47087 dated November 11, 2020 and 77130-77166 dated December 1, 2023 through which copies of aforementioned Order and Judgment were forwarded for uploading on the website of the judgeship and for circulation among all Judicial Officers. 

The Registrar General was directed to instruct that in all the District and Sessions Judges and Principal Judges of Family Courts that "maintenance proceedings, including pending proceeding before the Family Court/ District Court/ Magistrate's Court, the Affidavit of disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in accordance with the Enclosure I, II and III as given in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 titled Rajnesh Vs. Neha &Anr case" by Supreme Court's judgement of Justice Indu Malhotra. The letter reads: "directions in its para no. 72 [(2021) 2SCC 324] shall be strictly followed and any breach and non-compliance of the direction contained in the aforementioned two judgments shall be seriously viewed."

The decision of Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy of the Supreme Court dated November 4, 2020 in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 reads:"we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending
proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B – III of the judgment.
The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B – IV above.
(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance
For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."

The final paragraph of the judgement reads: "A copy of this judgment be communicated by the Secretary General of this Court, to the Registrars of all High Courts, who would in turn circulate it to all the District Courts in the States. It shall be displayed on the website of all District Courts / Family Courts / Courts of Judicial Magistrates for awareness and implementation." The judgement in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 was authored by Justice Indu Malhotra.

In Aditi alias Mithi vs Jitendra Sharma (Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023), on November 6, 2023, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal observed: "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." 

The Court's directions reads: "Considering the facts of the case in hand and the other similar cases coming across before this Court not adhering to the guidelines given in Rajnesh’s case (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate the aforesaid judgment not only to all the Judicial Officers through the High Courts concerned but also to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during the training programmes as well." The judgement was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.