Guidelines for maintenance not being adhered to, parties forced to litigate: SC orders for re-circulation of its verdict

The apex court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which reduced the monthly maintenance amount of Rs 20,000 fixed by the trial court for the minor daughter to Rs 7,500. The minor daughter of the couple moved the apex court against the high court order. The apex court said the high court order is cryptic and is bereft of reasons, which deserves to be set aside. -- Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court has expressed its discontent on non-adherence with its 2021 judgment, which laid down detailed guidelines for the parties involved in maintenance matters involving prescribing filing of affidavits on disclosure of assets and liabilities.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal pointed that detailed guidelines were laid down in the case of 'Rajnesh v Neha and Another' (2021). “The case in hand is not in isolation. Even after pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is still coming across a number of cases decided by the courts below fixing maintenance, either interim or final, without there being any affidavit on record filed by the parties”, said the bench.

The apex court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which reduced the monthly maintenance amount of Rs 20,000 fixed by the trial court for the minor daughter to Rs 7,500. The minor daughter of the couple moved the apex court against the high court order. The apex court said the high court order is cryptic and is bereft of reasons, which deserves to be set aside.

On the minor daughter’s appeal, the bench remitted back the matter for fresh consideration. "In a given case, where the earning of the wife is also good, that factor can always be considered as joint parenting is always best for upbringing of the child. The basic object is the welfare of the child," said the bench, in a judgement delivered on November 6.

In the present case, the bench said there was no record that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of 2021 judgment of this court. The bench said 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.

The bench said 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”, said the bench.

"We deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this court to re-circulate the 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 bench said.