Justice Dr. Anshuman as part of Division Bench approves order, decree for divorce by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad

On September 16, 2025, Patna High Court delivered seven judgements in Kripa Shankar Dwivedi vs. Seema Devi, Nandu Rai vs. The State of Bihar, Km. Prerna Tiwari vs. The State of Bihar, Nawdip Chand Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Mamta Mishra vs. The State of Bihar, Anshu Ranjan,Proprietor of Android Store vs. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Dept.P.S.Sachivalaya, District-Patna and Roshan Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.

High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 7-page long judgement in Kripa Shankar Dwivedi vs. Seema Devi (2025), wherein, it observed: ''After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court that the parties have reached on the settlement and jointly prayed that the decree of divorce may be approved as parties are not interested to live together and full and final settlement amount has already been received by the respondent. In the light of the submissions made, without entering into merit and demerit of the appeal, we hereby approve the order and decree for divorce dated 10.12.2009 and 06.01.2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Matrimonial Case No.31 of 2009 after setting aside the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Misc. Case No.32 of 2011. 10. It is made clear that this order has been passed only due to the reason that parties have reached on settlement and they do not want to pursue their litigations further. With the aforesaid observation, the present miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed.'' Justice Dr. Anshuman authored the judgement. 

The appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant had filed a Matrimonial Case in 2007 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restoration of conjugal life which was allowed in favour of the appellant vide order and decree dated May 16, 2008 and May 22, 2008 respectively, by which respondent was directed to live with the appellant, but she did not agree to live with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Matrimonial Case in 2009 for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent on the ground of desertion which was allowed in his favour vide order and decree dated December 10, 2009 and January 6, 2010 respectively.

The counsel for the appellant also submitted that after waiting period of appeal, the appellant solemnized marriage with one Sweta Kumari on October 7, 2010 and now the appellant have two children, one son and one daughter with Sweta Kumari. He submitted that after marriage of appellant with Sweta Kumari the respondent (Divorcee) filed a Misc. Case on September 7, 2011 for setting aside the orders and decrees passed in the Matrimonial Case of 2007 (for restitution) and in Matrimonial Case of 2009 (divorce case) which was allowed vide order dated October 28, 2016 which is the impugned order in the  appeal. 

The appellant's counsel submitted that in addition to these cases, respondent had also filed Complaint Case in 2011 before the S.D.J.M., Arwal. He submitted that in the Misc. Appeal vide order dated March 2, 2017 ad interim stay was granted in his favour vide order dated March 2, 2017, by which the order dated October 28, 2016 passed in Misc. Case of 2011 was stayed. He submitted that litigation between the parties was further carried in a Criminal Revision of 2016 in which vide order dated March 15, 2023 passed by the High Court, all disputes were settled upon one time payment of Rs.17,00,000/ by the petitioner of Criminal Revision (present appellant) to O.P. No.2 of the said Criminal Revision (present respondent). The operative part of the order states as follows:“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 14.03.2023, a counter-affidavit has been filed by O.P. No.2 by which it transpires that she is agreed to settle all the disputes in one time upon payment of Rs. 17 lacs from the petitioner. In the affidavit, it has been categorically mentioned that the said amount be transferred in the saving account of O.P. No.2 bearing Account No. 37707852075 of SBI, Sipara Branch, Patna. It was also been accepted by O.P. No.2 that she will do all the needful to close Complaint Case No. 65 of 2011 and the Misc. Case No. 32 of 2011 pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Arwal and Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad."

The petitioner's counsel submitted that he had filed a Misc. Appeal in 2016 before High Court in which stay was granted in Misc. Case No. of 2011. He submitted to the High Court that a direction may be given to O.P. No.2 that at the time of hearing Misc. Appeal of 2016, she shall support and do all needful so that the entire dispute that is Matrimonial Case of 2007 and Divorce Case bearing Matrimonial Case No. 31 of 2009 may also be closed. The counsel for O.P. No.2 agreed for the same. 

The Court observed: "In this view of the matter and on the basis of the affidavit and submission made, this case was hereby settled and there was no dispute from any corner left between the parties. Both parties assured to the court that they shall respect all undertakings/affidavits before the High Court, by their counsel. It was made clear that the said amount Rs. 17 lacs shall be paid in the account of O.P. No.2 by the petitioner within 4 months in installment. It was also made clear that till final payment, he shall deposit monthly Rs.10,000/-. The process of closing the case shall be started upon receiving the amount in the account. O.P. No.2. It was assured by O.P. No.2 that in no way, she shall proceed in any manner in the complaint case against petitioner before the S.D.J.M., Arwal."

The respondent's counsel submitted that the full and final settlement had already taken place and as per pleading that after decree of divorce appellant entered into marriage and respondent also did not want to pursue the litigation.

Both counsels for the appellant and the respondent submitted to the High Court that the order of divorce may be revived as settlement took place between the parties and respondent had no objection for the same. The counsel for the respondent also submitted that the revival of order of divorce be made by setting aside the order dated October 28, 2016 passed in Miscellaneous Case of 2011, she (respondent) had no objection for the same. 

As part of Division Bench Justice S. B. Pd. Singh authored all judgments dated September 2

Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh delivered seven judgements on September 2, 2025.All the judgements dated September 2 by this bench were authored by Justice Singh. 

In Bibek Kumar Jaiswal @ Vivek Kumar Jaiswal vs. Shabnam Jaiswal @ Sabnam Jaiswal (2025), a case from Supaul, Justice Singh held that Family Court rightly dismissed the matrimonial case of the appellant seeking divorce. 

In Nilu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar (2025), a case from Hajipur, Justice Singh set  aside the judgement and decree by Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali. 

In Shashi Bhushan Poddar vs. Gyan Bharti @ Rekha Poddar & Anr. (2025), a case from Bhagalpur, Justice Singh upheld Family Court's judgement and decree which dismissed the matrimonial case of the appellant seeking divorce. 

In Arun Kumar vs. Sushmita Kumari (2025), a case from Begusarai, Justice Singh set aside judgment and decree by Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, which had dismissed the divorce case. 

In Md. Naushad Hussain vs. Shahida Khaton & Anr. (2025), a case from Darbhanga, Justice Singh concluded:"Considering the fact that Talaq has already been performed between the parties and in the entire evidence, the appellant-husband has not denied the aforesaid assertion of the respondent and the respondent herself does not want to continue matrimonial relationship with the appellant-husband, we are not inclined to interference with the impugned judgment. The Family Court has rightly dismissed the Matrimonial Case No. 209 of 2012 filed on behalf of the appellant husband."   

In Pramod Pasi vs. The State of Bihar through Secretary Excise and Prohibition Department Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), a case from Gopalganj, the Court recorded that the recovery of illicit liquor was only 7.8 litres which is a meager quantity. Justice Singh concluded:"Considering the small quantity of liquor, the concerned authority is hereby directed to collect fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousands) from the petitioner and release the motorcycle in his favour within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order, for which petitioner has no objection." He observed: "We are conscious of the fact that alleged recovery is meager quantity and the aforesaid order has been passed while invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons that unnecessarily petitioner shall not be subjected to various proceedings like Rule of 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with amended sub Rule 2 of Rule 12A in the year 2022 and 2023, Sections 58, 92 and 93 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for an issue of 7.8 litres of illicit liquor and such order is required to prevent the multiplicity of proceeding in the interest of justice."

In Yogendra Yadav vs, The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar Prohibition and Excise Department, Bihar & Ors. (2025), a case from Gaya, Justice Singh took note of the fact that the recovery of illicit liquor was only 1 litre which is a meager quantity. He observed: "Considering the small quantity of liquor, the concerned authority is hereby directed to collect fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Five Thousands) from the petitioner and release the motorcycle in his favour within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order, for which petitioner has no objection." He added: We are conscious of the fact that alleged recovery is meager quantity and the aforesaid order has been passed while invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons that unnecessarily petitioner shall not be subjected to various proceedings like Rule of 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with amended sub Rule 2 of Rule 12A in the year 2022 and 2023, Sections 58, 92 and 93 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for an issue of 1 litre of illicit liquor and such order is required to prevent the multiplicity of proceeding in the interest of justice."

Notably, a 17-page long judgement dated September 1, 2025 by the same Division Bench had set aside the judgment and decree dated February 25, 2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj. This judgement too was authored by Justice Singh.  

 

As part of Division Bench Justice S. B. Pd. Singh sets aside judgment, decree by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj

"The essential ingredients in an offence of adultery are that: (i) There should be an act of sexual intercourse outside the marriage, and (ii) that such intercourse should be voluntary."

In Kiran Devi vs. Akhilesh Mishra & Anr. (2025), a miscellaneous appeal, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh passed a 17-page long judgement dated September 1, 2025 setting aside the judgment and decree dated February 25, 2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj in M.M. Case No. 176 of 2011 M.M. Case No. 176 of 2011 stands and dismissed the case. The judgement was authored by Justice Singh. 

The appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated February 25, 2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj, whereby the matrimonial suit, preferred by Akhilesh Mishra, the respondent No. 1, for a decree of divorce, on dissolution of marriage, was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- as permanent alimony for life support of the appellant. The case of the respondent No. 1 as per petition filed before the Family Court was that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with respondent No.1 in the month of May, 2005 as per the Hindu Rites and Custom. After the marriage, the appellant came to her matrimonial house and stayed there for few months and thereafter, she went to her parents’ house and stayed there for a year. The respondent-husband and his father made several attempts to take the appellant to her matrimonial house, but all the efforts went in vein. At last in June, 2006 the respondent No. 1 went to his Sasural along with some relatives on promise of his father-in-law and brother-in-law to sent the appellant with him but she did not come with the respondent No. 1. Subsequently, the respondent-husband came to know that appellant has illicit relationship with Ashok Sharma, the respondent No. 2 who often used to visit the house of the appellant. The respondent-husband also came to know that appellant was pregnant and a female child was born who died just after the birth. The respondent-husband made several attempts to reconcile the matter with the appellant but all his efforts went in vein. The appellant, thereafter filed complaint case in 2009 against the respondent-husband and other family members which was registered as Bhore P.S. case of 2010 under Sections 498(A), 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the this case, the respondent-husband and his father were rotting in jail for 6-7 months and ultimately after some time, on the intervention of relatives, a compromise was filed in the said case and appellant came to her Sasural but after sometime, the appellant went away from her Sasural with respondent No. 2. The respondent-husband also alleged that appellant and respondent-husband never cohabited since their marriage and appellant had completely deserted the matrimonial life of the respondent-husband. The respondent-husband, therefore, prayed that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 be declared dissolved and a decree of divorce be passed in his favour. 

In response to the summon/notice issued by the Court, appellant/O.P No. 1 appeared and filed her reply/written statement. In her written statement/reply, the respondent No. 1 had stated all the allegations levelled by the appellant against her is false, concocted and without any basis. She also stated that after the marriage in the year 2005, she went to the house of respondent-husband and started living in her matrimonial house but after sometimes, her in-laws family members started demanding dowry and torture
was inflicted for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The appellant, in the meanwhile, conceived and a female child was born who died after birth. Thereafter, the respondent- husband and other family members started pressurizing the appellant for motorcycle and colour T.V. and ultimately, on April 20, 2009 they badly assaulted and ousted her from the matrimonial house. The father of the appellant and other relatives made several attempts and requested the respondent-husband and other in-laws to keep her at her matrimonial house but they denied to keep her at her matrimonial house. The appellant, thereafter filed Complaint Case No. 2761 of 2009 against the respondent-husband and other family members which was registered as Bhore P.S. Case No. 2 of 2010 under Sections 498(A), 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent-husband, thereafter filed a divorce case in 2009. In this case, a compromise took place and the respondent-husband was directed to keep the appellant with full dignity and honour. The appellant went to her matrimonial house and started living there but in the meantime, the respondent-husband got a job in Dubai and again appellant was tortured for demand of dowry. The respondent-husband again filed a divorce case in 2011 on the same very facts.

The issues which were framed by the Trial Court are:-
1. Whether the case as framed is maintainable?
2. Whether the appellant has cause of action to file this case?
4. Whether the applicant is entitled to get decree for dissolution of marriage against the O.P ?
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief or reliefs?

The High Court considered the following points for determination in this appeal:-
(i) Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief sought for in his petition/appeal.
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is just, proper and sustainable/tenable in the eyes of law.

Justice Singh observed:"we find that respondent-husband has deposed in his evidence that appellant-wife always used to make quarrel with him and his family members but no any specific instance of date has been mentioned in the plaint as well as in his evidence. He has also admitted in his evidence that prior to filing of this divorce case, there were no relationship between the appellant and respondent No. 1. The respondent-husband has also not brought on record any proof regarding illicit relationship of appellant with respondent No. 2. The respondent-husband has also not brought on record any cogent and reliable evidence which could show that appellant and respondent No. 2 are living in adultery. The respondent-husband has also not filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which would reflect that he was interested to resume conjugal life with the appellant. The respondent-husband has also not explained as to why he has filed second divorce petition with same allegation as records show that before filing of the present divorce petition, the respondent-husband has also filed M.M Case No. 62 of 2009 which was compromised. So far as allegation of adultery is concerned, the record clearly suggests that only in order to make a legal ground in the divorce case, these baseless allegations have been levelled by the respondent-husband."

The High Court in relied on Supreme Court's decision in Samar Ghose vs. Jaya Ghose reported in 2007 (4) SCC 511 that a sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. More trivial irritations, quarrel, normal wear and tear of the married live which happens in day-to-day live would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in case of Narain Ganesh Dastane vs. Sucheta Naraih Dastane reported in, AIR 1975, SC, 1534. The relevant paragraph reads: 
"One other matter which needs to be clarified is that though under Section 10(1) (b), the apprehension of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the other party has to be reasonable, it is wrong, except in the context of such apprehension, to import the concept of a reasonable man as known to the law of negligence of judging of matrimonial relations. Spouses are undoubtedly supposed and expected to conduct their joint venture as best as they might but it is no function of a court inquring into a charge of cruelty to philosophise on the modalities of married life. Some one may want to keep late hours of finish the day's work and some one may want to get up early for a morning round of golf. The court cannot apply to the habits or hobbies of these the test whether a reasonable man situated similarly will behave in a similar fashion. 'The question whether the misconduct complained of constitutes cruelty and the like for divorce purposes is determined primarily by its effect upon the particular person complaining of the acts. The question is not whether the conduct would be cruel to a reasonable person or a person of average or normal sensibilities, but whether it would have that effect upon the aggrieved spouse. That which may be cruel to one person may be laughed off by another, and what may not be cruel to an Individual under one set of circumstances may be extreme cruelty under another set of circumstances". The Court has to deal, not with an ideal husband and ideal wife (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a near-ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to a matrimonial court for, even if they may not be able to draw their differences, their ideal attitudes may help them overlook or gloss over mutual faults and failures."

Justice Singh observed:"....it is crystal clear that respondent-husband has failed to prove the cruel behaviour of the appellant towards him and his family members by the strength of cogent, relevant and reliable evidence, while burden of proof of cruelty rests upon the respondent-husband. Not even single incident with reference to specific date of alleged cruelty has been urged in the plaint before the Family Court. Moreover, wife (appellant) is still ready to live with the respondent-husband. Furthermore, alleged certain flimsy act or omission or using some threatening and harsh words may occasionally happen in the day-to-day conjugal life of a husband and wife to retaliate the other spouse but that cannot be a justified/sustainable ground for taking divorce. Some trifling utterance or remarks or mere threatening of one spouse to other cannot be construed as such decree of cruelty, which is legally required to a decree of divorce. The austerity of temper and behaviour, petulance of manner and harshness of language may vary from man to man born and brought up in different family background, living in different standard of life, having their quality of educational qualification and their status in society in which they live. 23. Thus, considering the above entire aspects of this case and evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, we find that respondent-husband has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty, much less, the decree of cruel behaviour of appellant which is legally required for grant of decree of divorce under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act." 

The High Court's judgement reads: "24. So far as ground of adultery is concerned, adultery may be defined as the act of a married person having sexual intercourse with a person of opposite gender other than the wife or husband of the person. Under the present Hindu Marriage Act, adultery is laid down as one of the grounds for divorce or judicial separation.....26. The respondent-husband has not brought on record any proof to show that appellant was having illicit relationship with the respondent No. 2 nor he has proved that they were living in adultery and only in order to make a valid ground in the divorce petition, these allegations were levelled against the appellant without any supporting material evidence.

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.