A single Judge from Orissa HC remanded a Maintenance Order back to Trial Court, for not complying with SC judgments in Rajnesh and Aditi.
From Para 2,
2. …
It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that admittedly neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another; (2021) 2 SCC 324 which is the mandatory requirement for deciding application for maintenance under different provisions of law and although the Petitioner-husband has not filed such disclosure affidavit, but it is the mandatory requirement of the law as held in Rajnesh(supra).
From Para 3,
3. After having considered the rival submissions upon going through the materials placed on record, 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 which is forthcoming from the following observation made by the Apex Court in paragraphs-72.2 and 72.3
In the above premises, viewing what should be the consequence for non-filing of disclosure affidavits which is mandatory in nature after the decision in Rajnesh(supra), this Court considers it useful to refer to the decision in Aditi Vs. Jitesh Sharma; (2023) SCC Online SC 1451
From Para 4,
4. It is also not in dispute that the judgment in Rajnesh(supra) was delivered on 4.11.2020 and the guidelines therein have been circulated to all the
Courts in India for compliance, but it has not been followed in this case while passing the impugned judgment. When the principle culled out in a decision is directed to be followed mandatorily, the Court concerned is under obligation to follow such guidelines, but in this case, the learned trial Court having not followed the provisions of the guidelines issued in Rajnesh(supra), the matter is required to be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law by complying the guidelines of the Rajnesh(supra).
From Para 5,
Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 20255. In the result, the revision stands allowed and the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2023 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Khurda in
Criminal Petition No.431 of 2017 is hereby set aside. Ergo, the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
It is, however, made clear that the learned trial Court while adjudicating the matter afresh may receive the disclosure affidavits from the parties and provide opportunity to lead evidence on the very aspect of the disclosure affidavits by taking into consideration the mandatory guidelines of the Apex Court in Rajnesh(supra).
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.
Index of Maintenance Judgments which fail to follow RvN and AvJ Judgement is here.
