A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follows, Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits.

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. A slew of directions in the form of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and extracted above are mandatory in nature and  must be followed in all maintenance cases by all Courts dealing with maintenance throughout the country. The judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was delivered on 04/11/2020 and the guidelines therein have been circulated to all the Courts in India for compliance. After the judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was rendered, the Supreme Court in the judgment in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451] which was delivered on 06/11/2023 noticed that guidelines in Rajnesh (supra) have not been followed by many courts in the country while fixing the maintenance, either interim or final. The Supreme Court expressed its deep concern in not adhering to the mandatory guidelines given in Rajnesh (supra) so far as the requirement of filing the Affidavit of Disclosure is concerned. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has issued directions to re-circulate a copy of the judgment containing guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance to judicial officers in all High Courts across the country. However, it is quite unfortunate to notice that, despite the specific directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and Aditi Alias Mithi (supra), various Courts in the State, like in the present one, are passing orders, either interim or final, fixing maintenance, without there being any Affidavit of Disclosure on record filed by the parties. This Court can take judicial notice of the said fact from the number of Original Petitions [(OP(Crl.)] and Revision Petitions [(RP(FC)] filed before this Court challenging the interim as well as final order of maintenance passed without bringing on record the Affidavit of Disclosure of the parties in terms of the directions in Rajnesh (supra).
7. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra). However, the Family Court disposed of the interim maintenance application as per the impugned order considering the pleadings. The petitioner herein, while considering the application for interim maintenance, pointed before the Family Court that the 1st respondent did not file the affidavit showing her assets and liabilities. However, the Family Court took the view that since the petitioner himself did not file the affidavit, he could not take up such a contention. Guideline No.72.1(a) in Rajnesh (supra) specifically says that the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings, throughout the country, shall file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court as a mandatory requirement. Guideline No.72.2(b) in Rajnesh (supra) makes it mandatory for the applicant making a claim for maintenance to file a concise application accompanied by the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets. It was further observed that based on the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. It is true that guideline No.72.3 says that the respondent also must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks, and the court may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. But the mere fact that the petitioner herein did not file an Affidavit of Disclosure as directed in Rajnesh (supra) would not absolve the 1st respondent from filing such an affidavit. Since the impugned order is passed without the affidavits of both parties, it cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The matter is required to be remitted back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law by complying with the directions in Rajnesh (supra). The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent has now filed an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the Family Court.

Citations: [2025:KER:22087]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.