Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Posted on April 3 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Mariya Zafar v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) addressed whether a Magistrate can reject an application seeking production of financial documents under Section 91 CrPC (now Section 94 BNSS) in a domestic violence proceeding.

The petitioner-wife alleged domestic violence, dowry harassment, and financial suppression by her husband. She sought disclosure of his bank accounts, Income Tax Returns (ITRs), and GST records to determine his actual income for maintenance proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

However, the trial court rejected her application, stating that concealment could instead be dealt with under Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS). Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court emphasized compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, which mandates full financial disclosure in maintenance matters. After examining the husband’s ITRs (produced in sealed cover), the Court found that he had misrepresented his occupation and income. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed reconsideration.

“11.“…the court below has observed that there is no need to summon the Income Tax Returns of opposite party No. 2 to ascertain the income and the reason has been recorded that in case the opposite party is concealing the material fact, then he will be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”
“14….the opposite party No. 3 is directed to bring the income tax return of the last two years filed by the opposite party No. 2…”
“15.ITRs of opp. party No. 2… indicate that the opposite party No. 2 is an Architect… in the AY 2023-24 his total income was Rs. 4,85,290.00 and in the AY 2024-25 his income was Rs. 5,07,680.00.”
“17. ..the order dated 19-01-2026… is hereby set aside and the said court is directed to take fresh decision in the matter in the light of judgment… within 6 weeks…”

Decision

The Allahabad High Court:

Set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 19.01.2026.
Directed the trial court to reconsider the application under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) in light of Rajnesh v. Neha.
Ordered that the matter be decided within 6 weeks.
Allowed the petitioner access to the respondent’s ITRs.
Emphasised the importance of truthful financial disclosure in maintenance proceedings.

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Domestic Violence judgments is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Financial Disclosure in Maintenance Proceedings
Summoning of Documents
Burden of Proof
Judicial Duty to Ensure Fair Maintenance Adjudication
Enforcement of Supreme Court Guidelines (Rajnesh v. Neha)

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Memo to Court Seeking Compliance of Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities

Posted on March 20 by Suprajaa Rajan

A strategic legal remedy when courts proceed with interim maintenance without financial disclosure.

In matrimonial litigation, courts sometimes proceed to pass interim maintenance orders without insisting on the mandatory Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities. However, such an approach directly contradicts the binding guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.

Therefore, when a court attempts to grant interim relief without financial disclosure, the aggrieved party must act immediately by filing a Memo seeking compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.

This article provides a practical legal response, procedural clarity, and a ready-to-use draft format.

I. Legal Position – Mandatory Financial Disclosure

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha clearly held that:

Both parties must file Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities
Courts must not decide maintenance arbitrarily
Financial disclosure ensures fair and realistic assessment

Therefore, passing interim orders without such affidavits may result in:

Violation of principles of natural justice
Arbitrary determination of maintenance
Grounds for challenge before appellate court

II. What Should You Do in This Situation?

If the court indicates that it may proceed without affidavit:

Step 1: File a Memo Immediately

You must bring this issue formally on record.

Step 2: Refer to Supreme Court Guidelines

Specifically highlight Rajnesh v. Neha compliance.

Step 3: Request Court to Defer Interim Order

Seek direction to both parties to file affidavits first.

Step 4: Preserve Your Right to Challenge

This memo creates a record for appeal/revision if needed.

III. Who Should File This Memo?

The Respondent (usually husband in maintenance cases)
Through advocate on record
Or in person, if no advocate is engaged

IV. Drafting Strategy

While drafting this memo:

Keep it respectful, not confrontational
Avoid accusing the court directly
Use language like “in light of binding precedent”
Focus on procedural compliance, not merits

V. Sample Draft Format – Memo Seeking Compliance with Affidavit Requirement

Sample Draft – Memo Seeking Filing of Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities (Rajnesh v. Neha Compliance)

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF [COURT NAME] AT [CITY]

Case No.: [____]

In the matter of:

[Name of Applicant/Wife]
…Applicant

Versus

[Name of Respondent/Husband]
…Respondent

MEMO ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT SEEKING COMPLIANCE OF AFFIDAVIT OF ASSETS & LIABILITIES

Most Respectfully Submitted:

1. That the present matter is pending before this Hon’ble Court and is listed for hearing on interim relief.

2. That this Hon’ble Court is considering grant of interim maintenance in the present proceedings.

3. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 has laid down mandatory guidelines requiring both parties to file detailed Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities before determination of maintenance.

4. That in the present case, the Applicant has not filed the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. That in absence of such financial disclosure, any determination of interim maintenance may not reflect the true financial position of the parties.

6. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that both parties may be directed to file their Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities before passing any interim order.

PRAYER

In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Direct the parties to file Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in compliance with Supreme Court guidelines; and

b) Defer consideration of interim maintenance till such affidavits are placed on record.

Place: [City]
Date: [Date]

Counsel for the Respondent
[Signature]

VI. What If the Court Still Passes an Interim Order?

If the court proceeds despite this memo:

You can file Revision / Appeal before higher court
Challenge order as contrary to Supreme Court guidelines
Highlight absence of financial disclosure

This memo becomes critical evidence to show you objected at the right stage.

Conclusion

When courts proceed without insisting on Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities, it is essential to respond strategically rather than passively. Therefore, filing a well-drafted memo invoking Supreme Court guidelines ensures procedural fairness and protects your legal rights.

Ultimately, this approach strengthens your case both at the trial stage and in appellate proceedings.

Index of Legal Templates and Drafting is here.

Disclaimer

These templates are provided for educational and informational purposes. Every case depends on specific facts and procedural posture. Professional legal advice should be obtained before filing any application.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Mazaffar on 29 Oct 2025

Posted on February 14 by ShadesOfKnife

In Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar, the Delhi High Court held that a Family Court cannot fix interim maintenance without recording a clear assessment of the husband’s income. While concealment of income permits an adverse inference, the Court must still determine actual or notional monthly income before fixing the quantum. Since the Family Court failed to disclose the income basis for the amount awarded, the High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh determination in accordance with law and the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha.

Before setting out the relevant extracts, the Court emphasized that maintenance cannot be fixed in vacuum and must reflect a reasoned assessment of income.

Relevant Extracts from the Judgement :

“9. Apparently, it is the petitioner’s case that he had left his job on 04.01.2019, therefore, it is questionable as to how there were credit entries of Rs.15,45,131/- in the period 2021–23, in case he was unemployed.”
“10. In these circumstances, the learned Family Court drew an adverse inference that the petitioner is a man of means and has sufficient capacity to maintain the respondent and their minor child.”
“17. However, the order does not disclose any assessment – either actual or notional – of the petitioner’s monthly income on the basis of which this quantum was determined.”
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in its present form. While the learned Family Court rightly observed that the petitioner had concealed his true income and possessed sufficient means, it proceeded to fix the amount of maintenance without recording any assessment of his income or indicating the basis on which the figure of ₹20,000/- per month was arrived at.
“19. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court for a fresh determination of interim maintenance…”

From Paras 47 to 49, A caution was sounded.

46. However, the method must be applied with accuracy and care. Minimum wages are not uniform across India; they vary by State/Union Territory, by scheduled employment, and by skill category (unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled, or highly skilled), and they are periodically revised. The learned Family Courts must therefore:
(i) identify the correct State,
(ii) determine the appropriate skill category on a prima facie view of the husband‟s qualifications, experience and past vocation, and
(iii) note the effective date of the minimum wage schedule relied upon.
47. Orders that simply assume “minimum wages in Delhi” without examining whether the husband resides or is ordinarily employed in another State result in a higher or lower income assessment. For instance, if the husband resides in the State of Haryana and there is no proof that he is employed in Delhi, the minimum wage schedule applicable in Haryana has to be applied. The inadvertent practice of applying Delhi’s minimum wages merely because the proceedings are before a court in Delhi or because the wife resides in Delhi ought to be avoided.
48. However, it is also to be considered that minimum wages are a floor, not a ceiling. If the record supports a higher prima facie income (for instance, on the basis of prior salary slips, tax returns, bank account statements, etc.), the Family Court should assess the income accordingly rather than resorting to default minimum wages.
49. It must also be borne in mind that minimum wages notified by each State are periodically revised. Therefore, while determining the income for a past period, the Family Court must refer to the minimum wages that were in force at that time, and not to the rates prevailing on the date of the order. For instance, if the income of the husband for the year 2022 is under consideration, the Court should take into account the minimum wages applicable in 2022 for the relevant category and State, rather than the revised figures of 2025.

Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Muzaffar on 29 Oct 2025

Citation: [2025:DHC:9479]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107706650/

Index of maintenance judgements under 125 Cr.P.C is here.

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M.
Contact : 9606345150

Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 5 Jan 2026

Posted on February 13 by ShadesOfKnife

In Arshi Parveen v. Maqsood, the Delhi High Court enhanced interim maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held that when a husband suppresses income details or provides incomplete, the Court can assess income on the basis of minimum wages applicable in the concerned State.

The Court held that the wife cannot be presumed to earn merely on allegation.

“8. Mere bald assertion that the wife is working and earning, without any proof to even prima facie support this claim, cannot be of any help to the respondent-husband at this stage. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that, for the purposes of grant of interim maintenance, the petitioner-wife cannot be presumed to be earning or being capable of maintaining herself.”
“10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the income of the respondent-husband must be assessed on the basis of minimum wages. Extract from Tasmeer Qureshi case cited :Minimum wages provide a statutory and reasonable basis to assess a person’s earning capacity when there is no direct or reliable proof of actual income available on record.”

From Paras 13 and 14,

13. Accordingly, to serve the interests of justice, the interim maintenance payable to the petitioner-wife is enhanced from ₹2,500/- per month to ₹3,500/- per month, payable from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. subject to adjustment of any amount already paid.
14. The petitioner is directed to also clear the arrears of maintenance within a period of 03 months from date.

Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 05 Jan 2026

Citation : [2026:DHC:13]

Other Sources :

https://lawlens.in/doc/ad1b1315-b5cf-43f9-b8e0-b623d4374582

https://www.legalbites.in/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita/maintenance-fixation-must-use-minimum-wages-of-husbands-state-rather-than-courts-location-1237797

Index of Maintenance Judgements under 125 Cr.P.C is here.

Key Contributor:
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com, LL.B., LL.M.
Contact : +91-9606345150

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025

Posted on February 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge Bench of the Patna High Court upheld an order granting maintenance to the wife under Section 125 CrPC. The husband challenged the order in revision. He argued that the wife had deserted him.

The Court held that a plea of desertion cannot defeat a maintenance claim by itself. The husband must first obtain a declaration from a competent matrimonial court. Until then, the wife remains entitled to claim maintenance.

The following paragraphs form the foundation of the Court’s reasoning:

“7. But unless the petitioner is able to get a declaration in his favour in the Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the opposite party no. 2 fails to justify her desertion, any challenge to the maintenance order is not sustainable.”
“7. It also transpires that the maintenance amount awarded to the opposite party no. 2 is about 25 percent of the net salary of the petitioner which is in tune with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021).”

VivekKumarSinghVsPallawiKumari_11MAR2025_PatnaHC

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance judgements under Sec 125 CrPC is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M

Contact : +91-9606345150

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Rajnesh Vs Neha

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Memo to Court Seeking Compliance of Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities

I. Legal Position – Mandatory Financial Disclosure

II. What Should You Do in This Situation?

Step 1: File a Memo Immediately

Step 2: Refer to Supreme Court Guidelines

Step 3: Request Court to Defer Interim Order

Step 4: Preserve Your Right to Challenge

III. Who Should File This Memo?

IV. Drafting Strategy

V. Sample Draft Format – Memo Seeking Compliance with Affidavit Requirement

Sample Draft – Memo Seeking Filing of Affidavit of Assets & Liabilities (Rajnesh v. Neha Compliance)

VI. What If the Court Still Passes an Interim Order?

Conclusion

Disclaimer

Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Mazaffar on 29 Oct 2025

Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 5 Jan 2026

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025