Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025

Posted on March 21 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Order for Maintenance passed without adhering to the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha is liable to be set aside.

From Para 6,

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/husband would contend that no disclosure statement was filed by the respondent No.1 herein/wife and without the said statement, it is difficult to estimate the financial expenses of either of the parties to come to a conclusion as to how much amount is to be awarded to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards maintenance.

From Para 8,

8. A perusal of entire material on record coupled with the Order and Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, respectively, goes to show that either of the parties did not file disclosure statement. A disclosure statement in a Domestic Violence Case (DVC) refers to a document where a party involved in the case is required to provide detailed information about their financial assets and liabilities, including income, property ownership, bank accounts, and debt, as per the Court’s Order, usually to help in determining the appropriate maintenance or compensation amount in the case

From Para 10,

10. A plain reading of the above proposition of law, it is evident that while deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the Civil Court/Family Court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. The applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, to enable the Court to take into consideration the maintenance that was already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount and if the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding. In the case on hand, apparently, no disclosure statement was filed. It is mandatory that both husband and wife are supposed to file the disclosure statement before the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the case in DVC No.27 of 2016 shall be remanded to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore, for fresh disposal.

Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance cases under section 12 of DV Act is here.

Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025

Posted on February 15 by ShadesOfKnife

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,

5. 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.

Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments which fail to follow RvN and AvJ Judgement is here.

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Posted on October 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri remanded the maintenance case back to Trial Court since husband failed to file Income affidavit.

Although learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in arguing that the proposition laid down in Rajnesh vs. Neha has not been observed at all in the present case, on humanitarian consideration and considering that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party is still subsisting, it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner is entitled to get at least some amount of ad hoc alimony from the petitioner-husband.
Keeping in view the above considerations, CO 138 of 2022 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order and directing the District Judge, Cooch Behar to re-decide the application for alimony filed by the petitioner subject to directing the filing of affidavits in compliance with the proposition laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court as indicated above and to decide the same afresh within a reasonable period, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order to the said court. The above order will subsist on condition that the petitioner-husband goes on paying to the opposite party-wife an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month on an ad hoc basis for maintaining the opposite party-wife, apart from the medical expenses incurred by the wife upon the opposite party-wife handing over copies of the necessary documents indicating the costs incurred on her medical expenses account to the petitioner-husband.

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of APHC relying on judgment passed in my earlier client case here, set aside the Trial Court Order and remanded the case back.

From Paras 5-7,

5. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, the learned counsel for petitioner, submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court by common order dated 25.04.2024 disposed of Criminal Revision Case Nos.533 and 1098 of 2023 setting aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration by following the procedures which were laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and requests for passing the same order. He fairly submits that the revision petitioner would pay maintenance to the minor children, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, till they attain majority as ordered by the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the revision may be allowed and the matter may be remanded to the learned trial Court.
7. In view of the same, and following the order passed in Criminal Revision Case Nos.533 and 1098 of 2023, dated 25.04.2024, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The impugned order passed in M.C.No.62 of 2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which were laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(ii) This Court further directs both the parties to submit affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha^ before the trial Court. The learned trial Court must ensure strict adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits is found to be lacking in necessary particulars, the learned trial Court shall direct to produce the relevant information from the respective party.
(iii) The learned trial Court shall dispose of M.C.No.62 of 2018 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if any. It is made clear that the revision petitioner herein, as has been undertaken now shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance to the minor children at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month till they attain majority.

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024

Index is here.

Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023

Posted on September 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru Bench passed the following order in compliance of Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020

From Paras 4-7,

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs is directed to be paid from nowhere, as there is no consideration at the hands of the concerned Court qua the judgments rendered on the issue of grant of maintenance by the Apex Court and the Court has passed an order directing the said payment.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would admit that the concerned Court has not followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha,1 but would only submit that a time limit be prescribed for the concerned Court to dispose the application I.A.No.2 seeking grant of maintenance.4.
6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, a perusal at the order would indicate that the concerned Court has passed an order directing payment of Rs.5 lakhs, without considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra). This appears to be a serious flaw, in the light of the judgment in the case of Aditi Alias Mithi vs Jitesh Sharma reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1451, which follows Rajnesh vs. Neha.
7. In the light of the law reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Aditi (Supra), the concerned Court ought to have looked into the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (Supra) and then directed appropriate maintenance to be paid in an application filed by the wife. In the light of the order not referring to Rajnesh (Supra), the order is rendered unsustainable.

Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 CrPC) is here.

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023

Posted on September 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4-7,

4. When the revision petition came up for consideration on 20.3.2023, this Court admitted the revision petition and stayed further proceedings in M.C.No.6/2020, subject to the condition that the revision petitioner deposits the arrears of maintenance due to the second respondent and continues to pay interim monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- to the second respondent. This Court had called for a report from the Family Court, to ascertain as to whether the revision petitioner was served with notice prior to the passing of the impugned order.
5. Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judge of the Family Court, by communication dated 27.3.2023, has informed this Court that the order
sheet and the records in M.C.No.6/2020 reveal that even before notice was served on the revision petitioner in the application, a counsel named Sri. K.R.Muraleedharan appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner on 13.12.2023 and prayed for time for appearance of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the application was adjourned to 27.10.2022 and then to 16.12.2022, on which date the impugned order was passed. It is also reported that the counsel failed to file any vakalath. Subsequently he gave his no objection certificate to another counsel named Sri.S. Nidhin, who has now filed a vakalath for the revision petitioner.
6. On a consideration of the assertions in the memorandum of the revision petition, the materials placed on record, and the communication of the learned Judge of the Family Court, it is evident that the notices in both the M.C as well as Crl.M.P. were not served on the revision petitioner. It is only on the basis of the submission made by a counsel, that the Family Court assumed that the revision petitioner had failed to appear in the application and then passed the impugned order. Thus, I am of the definite view that the revision petitioner has not been granted an opportunity to contest the Crl.M.P. on merits.
7. In the above conspectus, I am of the firm view that the order has to be set aside and the revision petitioner be granted an opportunity to file his objection to the Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 and M.C. No.6/2020, which will do complete justice to both sides.

Finally,

In the result,
(i) The order in Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 in M.C. No.6/2020 is set aside.
(ii) The revision petitioner and the respondents are directed to appear before the Family Court on 1.12.2023.
(iii) The revision petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file his written objections both in Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 and M.C.No.6/2020, within 30 days from today.
(iv) The Family Court shall keep in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [2020 (6) KHC 1] and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma [Crl.Appeal No. 3446/2023], and direct the parties to file the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities.
(v) The Family Court shall dispose of Crl.M.P. No.16/2020, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from 1.12.2023.
(vi) The Family Court shall also make an endeavour to dispose of M.C. No.6/2020, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 CrPC) is here.

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

Posted on August 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 9,

9. This Court has gone through the said judgment. It did not hold that simultaneous proceedings under different enactments cannot be made. In fixing quantum of maintenance, it would be relevant in bringing to notice of the Court about filing of parallel proceedings for maintenance.
Further the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha 2, it is held,
“Directions on overlapping jurisdictions: It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V.Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.”

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

Citations : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6521 AP

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70415177/

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2022/september/2022-latest-caselaw-6521-ap

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=402202795000&Title=RAGIMANI-GANGADHAR-Vs.-RAGIMANI-PADMAVATHI

https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00200055810

Index of Domestic Violence cases is here.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Posted on May 3, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Order for Maintenance passed without adhering to the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha is liable to be set aside.

From Para 5,

5. During the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that both parties have not complied with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court enunciated in the judgment of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr.,1 concerning the filing of affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. Considering the submissions made, I have gone through the observations in Rajnesh V. Neha (cited supra) case. The said judgment has brought revolutionary change in the procedure to be followed by the Courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under section 340 of the Cr.P.C., or for Contempt of Court.

From Paras 7-14,

7. The aforesaid Judgment in the case of Rajnesh (cited supra) has been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi V. Jitesh Sharma 2 and expressing anguish over noncompliance/ improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance thereof.
8. It is acknowledged that both parties have failed to submit the affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of High Court of Patna in between Gitanjali Devi @ Gitanjali Kumari V. State of Bihar and another3, wherein, it is observed that the impugned order of granting maintenance amount is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. By following the principles laid down in the Aditi alias Mithi’s case cited supra, the High Court of Madras in Balram Dixit V. Smt. Kiran Dixit and another (Criminal Revision No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024) also set aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,Gwalior and further directed the both parties to submit fresh affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Rajnesh’s case cited supra.
10. Learned counsels representing both sides submit that because of lack of proper instructions, both parties could not comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and at present, they are ready to comply with the observations made in the judgments referred to supra, by filing the affidavits and both parties submits that the Respondent-husband is paying interim maintenance amount @ Rs.8,000/- per month vide orders dated 26.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2019 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 and he is ready to pay such maintenance amount during the pendency of FCOPs and after its restoration.
11. In view of the same, this Court refrains from delving into the merits of the case at this juncture, as the impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
12. The impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, is accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. This Court further directs the both parties to submit affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh (supra) before the Family Court. The Family Court must ensure strict adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits are found to be lacking in necessary particulars, the learned Judge shall direct to produce the relevant information from the respective party.
14. The Family Court shall dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if any. In the meantime, the Respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife till the disposal of the FCOP. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband. This is my first reportable judgment.

Citations: [2024 Latest Caselaw 3581 AP]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7473550/

https://mynation.net/docs/1098-2023/

https://latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2024/april/2024-latest-caselaw-3581-ap

Index of Maintenance cases under section 125 CrPC is here.

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Posted on February 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A perverse order passed by the AP High Court, totally bypassing the intent of the Apex Court is prescribing the guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha decision here.

From Paras 6-7,

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below erred in allowing the petition even without filing the statement of assets and liabilities and further that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner and yet, sought maintenance, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance. It is also submitted by him that without there being any evidence of income of the petitioner, the Court below granted interim maintenance of exorbitant amount, which is unsustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others1, wherein at paragraph No.99, it was held as follows:
“99. 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.”
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not raised any objection before the trial Court about the statement to be filed nor did he file any such statement. He further submitted that the petitioner herein did not dispute his income in the counter filed by him and further, after considering the facts and allegations submitted on both sides, the impugned order was passed by the Court below, and therefore, the same does not require any interference.

From Paras 9-11,

9. The petitioner herein has not raised any objection that the interim order cannot be granted in view of non-filing of such a statement by the respondent herein. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on that ground.
10. As rightly contended, the petitioner herein in his counter did not specifically deny his earnings and he merely stated that the respondent/wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken the earning capacity of the revision petitioner into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
11. Insofar as the question of desertion by the respondent herein is concerned, it is a matter of enquiry after full-fledged trial and prima facie there is no material on record to support the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner as contended.

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Index of all maintenance cases is here.

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Posted on January 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior bench held as follow:

The Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 considering the issues relating to grant of interim-maintenance, observed that the maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties and some amount of guess work. Both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. Keeping that in view, the Supreme Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance. These guidelines were laid down in exercise of power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of Constitution of India prescribing a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in every proceeding relating to maintenance.
The Supreme Court in case of Aditi alias Mithi versus Jitesh Sharma 2023 SCC Online SC 1451 expressing anguish over noncompliance/ improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance thereof.
The copy of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities submitted by Balram Dixit and Kiran Dixit show that most of the entries are filled cursorily without providing requisite particulars. Consequently, learned Principal Judge could not consider availability of source of income with the parties and their standard of living before the matrimonial discord. Non-compliance with the guidelines in its true spirit and substance is not acceptable.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 is set aside with the direction that both the parties shall submit fresh Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra). Learned Additional Judge to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior shall ensure strict compliance with the guidelines. If any of the affidavit is lacking in requisite particulars, learned Judge shall demand relevant particulars from concerned party. This exercise shall be completed within 15 days. If any of the parties fails to comply with the directions, appropriate action with regard to non-compliance may be taken against such party. Learned Principal Judge on consideration of the affidavits and material on record, pass an order afresh on application for interim-maintenance.

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Not followed Guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha Judgment

Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025

Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025

Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023

Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024

Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024