Brajesh Kumar Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge accuses Rishi Kant, Principal District and Sessions Judge of interfering in judicial proceedings to save DM, SP of Begusarai from contempt

Brajesh Kumar Singh, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has passed an order stating that Rishi Kant, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai of interfering in judicial proceedings to save DM and SP of Begusarai from contempt. In an order passed on November 17, Judge Singh has stated that Judge Kant abruptly recalled an execution case from his court, without any application from the parties or any report from him, after he recommended contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP) of Begusarai for failing to comply with court directions. 

Singh is the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai since February 1, 2025. He has done his Masters in Law. He will retire in February 2041. Singh has accused Rishi Kant, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of interfering in an execution petition against the DM and SP. Kant is Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai since March 5, 2025. He has done his Graduation in Law. He will retire in December 2037. 

The execution petition in question is related to a compensation amount of ₹11 lakh, awarded in August 2023 to the guardian of a petitioner who died in an accident caused by a police vehicle. The authorities allegedly failed to release the compensation, prompting the judge to consider contempt action. Judge Singh was hearing the matter since early 2024 before the astounding recall order without perusal of the case file in question. 

Judge Singh stated that Judge Kant passed the recall order “hastily” even though the case file was still with his court. Citing provision under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Singh said that its provision does not allow transfers at the whims of a senior judge. His order reads: “Every such order of transfer must be based on sound judicial principles… The Principal District and Sessions Judge has no absolute power to transfer the case when the transferor court is at the stage of concluding the proceedings,”  He observed:“Why only poor should be subjected to coercive orders… when mighty bureaucrats are made absolutely immune from judicial process in the lower judiciary.” 

In Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through D.M., Begusarai & Ors. (2025), Brajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, the Presiding Judge in the Court of District Judge-III, Begusarai passed an order dated November 17, 2025. The order reads:"Vide order dated 14.10.2025 against D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai, the contempt proceeding was recommended, and for this purpose, a separate miscellaneous case was registered. Vide the same order, show-causes from D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai were invited, however, till date, no show cause has been filed on their behalf. This court has given several opportunities to both D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai for receiving their respective replies as condition precedent to start contempt against them, but they have let the opportunities go. On behalf of D.M. Begusarai, neither show-cause nor response was filed. However, a response on behalf of S.P., Begusarai to the order dated 14.10.2025 has been filed. It is relevant to point out that, in para no-08 at page no-04 of his response, the S.P., Begusarai reserved his right to file his detailed show-cause before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna itself. It appears that D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai are willing to file their respective show-causes in the Hon'ble High Court, Patna directly. Hence, this court finds fit to direct the O.C to send the extracts of miscellaneous case (with the relevant orders) to the Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Patna with the recommendation to initiate contempt against the S.P., Begusarai and D.M., Begusarai in view of the order of this court dated 14.10.2025. Put up this case on 26-11-2025." 

The order reads:"Later on, an order no-488 (Misc.) dated 15.11.2025 of Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusrai was communicated. The copy of the order is shown to me. In the order, the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has been pleased to recall the present execution case no-01/2024 for keeping the same in his peronal file, for hearing and disposal. Though, this court has no vested interest in the matter, and is willing to send the records of the case to Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai, and accordingly, O.C is directed to hand over the entire case records to the court of Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai for keeping the records in his personal file, yet this court notes that the case is recalled by the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai without any application at the behest of either party or without report of the court." 

The order observed: "More importantly, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has passed the aforesaid hasty order of transfer without even looking at the records, may be on the basis of his personal knowledge, because the entire file is pending in the court of District Judge-III." The Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has palpably passed the order in the interest of so-called 'administration', however, section 24 of CPC is conspicuously silent about transfer on the ground of so-called 'administration'. It is trite that power of the Principal District and Sessions Judge u/s-24 of the CPC can not be exercised at his whims and fancies'. It is well established that every such order of transfer must be based on sound judicial priniciples, which principles are conspicuously absent in the present order of transfer. The alternative phrase "of its own motion" used in section 24 of the CPC cannot be equated with the pleasure' of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has no absolute power to transfer alternative phrase "of its own motion" used in section 24 of the CPC cannot be equated with 'the pleasure' of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has no absolute power to transfer the case when the transferor court is at the stage of concluding the proceedings in that case. By transferring the case at the concluding-stage from this court, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge has violated the principle of judicial independence', the very judicial principle which every judge has sworn protect."

The order concluded: "By passing the order of transfer, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge has made the judiciary a matter of laughing stocks in as much as the judges of sub-ordinate judiciary appear to be only paper tigers, having order passed by them has got binding effect on mighty and powerful bureaucrats. Truely speaking, my morale is badly dampened by seeing as to how the water is thrown at the entire efforts of this court by sheer this transfer. No judge would ever dare to pass order against the mighty bureaucrats like D.Ms and S.Ps, and then why only poor should be subjected to coercive orders of the court for non- compliance, when mighty bureaucrats are made absolutely immune from judicial process in the lower judiciary. In my opinion, the transfer by Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai was made to shield the D.M., Begusarai and S.P, Begusarai from contempt proceeding. It is relevant to point out that the incumbent Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has interfered in the judicial process in this case on earlier occasions also, which fact is duly recorded in the order of this count dated 23.09.2025. Nevertheless, let the justice be done in this case. am withdrawing from this case as mandated by the aforesaid transfer by Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai, but I have no regrets."

The principles with respect to the transfer of case under Section 24 CPC have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others (2008) 3 SCC 659. It has held: "At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action…………..”

The observation of the Supreme Court demonstrates that Judge Kant seemed to have erred in passing order of transfer with out application of mind because the file of the case has not even reached him.    

Amount determined for land acquisition compensation without any document is arbitrary, trial court judgment, decree set aside: Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey, Patna High Court

Patna High Court delivered 12 judgements on October 14, 2025 in Sri Gudar Sao vs. The State of Bihar, Garbhu Rai vs. Harihar Rai, Kumari Neelam Devi vs. Sri Satish Kumar, Sunila Devi vs. Pankaj Kumar, Alok Kumar vs. Smt. Anupama Singh, Phool Kant Mishra vs. The State Of Bihar, The Bihar Staff Selection Commission vs. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Surendra Jha vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors., SIFY Digital Services Limited vs. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Baraa Fawzi Haameed AL Bayati vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar and Manoj Kumar vs. Krishna Mohan Kumar.

 

In Sri Gudar Sao vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 26-page long judgement dated October 14, 2025, wherein, he concluded: ''I am of the view that the learned trial court has arbitrarily decided the compensation and his conclusion was not based on the materials available on the record. The amount which he has determined for compensation was based merely on assumption without any document. 35. As such, considering above facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and decree of the learned trial court is set aside and in result, these appeals are allowed. 36. Office is directed to prepare the decree/award. 37. Let the records of the learned trial court with a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court.'' Hetu Kishun, son of late Sri Gudar Sao pursued the case which commenced in 1994 in the High Court. 

   

All the three appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree dated October 14, 1993 passed in a Land Acquisition cases of 1990 passed by Sub-Judge 3rd, Patna whereunder the trial court awarded insufficient compensation with respect to the lands and houses which were acquired in these cases. The Land Acquisition Officer, Patna made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding adjudication for the adequacy of the compensation for the lands and houses acquired. There having common question of law and facts of 14 cases including these cases were taken together by the trial court. The facts leading to these cases are that about 01 Acre 15 Dismil of land along with houses standing over the same belonging to these awardees within the village- Mosimpur Kurtha P.S.- Fatwah, District- Patna acquired by the State of Bihar for the purpose of construction of approach road to Punpun bridge by a Gazette notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on August 16, 1980. Date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act for the same was on July 1, 1982 and the award of the lands and houses were made by the Collector on September 23, 1989 and the possession of the lands and the houses were taken on May 18, 1987 by the Collector. The compensation money for the bhith lands and homestead land acquired was paid to the awardees at the rate of Rs.96,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.3,000/- only per kattha. The Collector also paid the price of the houses to the awardees varying from Rs.3,690/- to Rs.2,31,750/-. The Collector also paid 30% solatium and interest on the amount of compensation to the awardees. The awardees received compensation money so awarded under protest to the effect that the compensation money awarded by the State of Bihar either for the lands or for the houses standing over the same was inadequate. Therefore, the Collector referred these cases to the court for adjudication of the adequacy of the quantum of the compensation.

 

According to the State of Bihar, compensation was already paid for the lands and houses standing thereon was proper and adequate. On the other hand, the awardees approached the court with their respective cases that the lands of the awardees lies within the notified area of Fatwah at the corner of the main road of Patna-Ranchi national Highway. It was also the case of the awardees that Land Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale deed which do not represent true and real market value of the lands under acquisition and left out the true and genuine sale deed of the locality representing higher price. They claimed the price of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per kattha. They also made out their case that the Executive Engineer of the State failed to take into account the correct aspect of engineering in respect of making assessment of the value of the buildings of the awardees. He should have taken into account while determining the compensation of the buildings as to what would be real cost in erecting a building similar to existing building of the awardees at the time of notification. According to their cases, inadequate price of their buildings has been fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of unscientific report of Executive Engineer. However, the awardees claimed the price of their respective houses varying from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.12,95,475/-. They also claimed compensation for damages done for their business premises. 

The counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Judge-III committed error of law as also on the facts in deciding the claim of the appellants. The trial court did not appreciate correctly the pleadings of the parties, made wrong and illegal approach to the cases. It was submitted that the total houses of these awardees constructed over 0.045 acres have been acquired by the State of Bihar and paid Rs.2,10,257 and 25 paisa only which was received by the appellants/defendants under protest and they have claimed the rate of land at Rs.50,000/-per kattha and Rs.8,11,414 for the houses. Rs.28,000/- annual for the loss of business and Rs.90,000/- for loss of furniture and goods. It was also submitted that the awardees examined altogether 16 witnesses and they adduced documentary evidence, State of Bihar did not give any written submission nor did it examine any witness except OW-1, Mathura Pandey who only proved rate report over khatiyaan, sale statement, possession certificate. The trial court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the appellants/defendants. It was submitted that the trial court has held in its judgment that “the aforesaid document in support of the price of the land determined by the State of Bihar have no evidentiary value and as such the aforesaid documents cannot be relied upon and in these circumstances the price of lands determined by the State of Bihar on the basis of sale figure mentioned in column 8 of the sale statement cannot be relied and adopted.”

 

The counsel for the appellants relied on decisions in i) (2010) 13 SCC 710, ii) (2012) 5 SCC 432 and iii) (2025) SCC Online SC 1519.

 

The Respondents/plaintiffs relied on certain citations, such as AIR 1977 SC 580, AIR 1977 SC 560, AIR 2010 SC 170, AIR 2004 SC 4532 :: 2004 AIR SCW 4255 and AIR 2004 SC 288 :: 2003 AIR SCW 6117.
 

The trial court grappled with the following two issues: 

First issue :- The first issue was whether the compensation money awarded by the State of Bihar in respect of land was proper and adequate or it requires to be changes.

Second issue :- Second was whether the amount of compensation paid by the Collector in respect of the house of the awardees was proper and adequate and according to size, age and construction of the building under the acquisition. 

 

The trial court disbelieved the basis on which the compensation has been determined by the Collector. As the price of the land acquired has been determined solely on the basis of only one sale deed mentioned in column-8 of the sale statement as against average rate of all the sale deeds.

The counsel for the appellants/defendants argued that from perusal of the impugned judgment it emerges that the trial court relied on the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR (1979) 472 in which it was held that ‘mere sale statement is not admissible in law’. Admittedly, the author of sale rate namely, Land Acquisition Officer was not examined in this case. The trial court did not rely upon the documents which were adduced by the respondents and categorically held that sale figures mentioned in Column-8 of the sale statement cannot be relied rather the trial court has relied on the sale deeds. The lands under the aforesaid sale deeds was situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands which fact was evident from survey map. The trial court also held that ‘it does not stand to my reason as to why this sale deed has not been taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was simply rejected on the ground that it was executed on competitive basis although there is no such evidence on the record, so the aforesaid sale deed has to be considered in this case.”

 

The counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that recently in Manohar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Supreme Court held in Paragraphs 31, 38, 39 and 40, which reads:-
31. In the case of Anjani Molu Dessai (supra) this Court, while referring to two previous
decisions of this Court, held thus: 
"20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of undervaluation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging  annot be resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in this behalf.

 

In M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector, [(1 969) 1 Mad LJ 45 (SC)], a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed that the proper method for evaluation of market value is by taking the highest of the
exemplars and not by averaging of different types of sale transactions. 

 

The High Court relied on decision in State of Punjab vs. Hans Raj, [(1994) 5 SCC 734], wherein it was held: "4. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out average price paid under the sale transactions to determine the market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method of averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different kinds at different times, for fixing the market value of the acquired land, if followed, could bring about a figure of price which may not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.”

Now that the High Court has decided that trial court had arbitrarily decided the compensation without any document based on assumption, the judgment and decree of the trial court has been set aside and the office has been directed to prepare the decree/award, the same will have to be prepared with reference to the provisions under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. which is operational from January 1, 2014. 

 

Given the fact that the judgment and decree dated October 14, 1993 by the trial court in a 1990 case wherein the trial court had awarded insufficient compensation with respect to the lands and houses which were acquired, has been set aside by the High Court, it cannot be said that land acquisition proceedings were already been concluded. As a consequence, the appellants become entitled to benefits of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act  

  

Section 24 reads:''Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1984 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,--
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'' 

  

The CAG's audit report of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar states that "The LA Act, 1894 and the Act, 2013, provides that in case the compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount with interest at the prescribed rates from the time of taking possession till it has been so paid or deposited. The Departmental circular of February 2009 provides that the land acquisition process can only be started after receipt of full cost of compensation from requiring body." 

 

Notably, the benefits of the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement provided in the Act have been extended in cases of land acquisition made under the 13 Acts specified in the Fourth Schedule, namely,. 

1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958
2. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 
3. The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 
4. The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 
5. The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885

6. The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978
7. The National Highways Act, 1956
8. The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962
9. The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952
10. The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948
11. The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957
12. The Electricity Act, 2003
13. The Railways Act, 1989

 

 

 

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.