The Supreme Court on Monday (06.11.2023) observed that the detailed guidelines issued by it in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 32 regarding the payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters is not being followed in many cases. Accordingly, the Apex Court has issued a direction for a copy of the judgment containing guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance, to be re-circulated to judicial officers in all High Courts across the country.

The bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, issued this directive in response to an appeal challenging a High Court order that had, in a somewhat unclear manner, altered a thoughtful decision made by the Family Court. The High Court's modification resulted in a decrease in the monthly maintenance allowance to be provided by the father to his minor daughter, reducing it from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 7,000.

''Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of judgment of this Court in Rajnesh’s case (supra), which was directed to be communicated to all the High Courts for further circulation to all the Judicial Officers for awareness and implementation.''

In the year 2020, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha. In this celebrated decision, the Court provided comprehensive guidelines to streamline the process of granting maintenance. These guidelines encompassed various aspects, including the criteria for determining the amount of maintenance, the effective date from which maintenance should commence, the enforcement of maintenance orders, and the establishment of provisions for interim maintenance payments.

In that matter, the Court observed that in maintenance proceedings the wife tends to exaggerate her needs and the husband tends to conceal his actual income and hence had also prescribed a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in such proceedings.

In the current case, the Court pointed out that it was evident that the previously issued guidelines had not been followed. The Court expressed its concern that this failure to adhere to the guidelines was a recurring issue, and it was causing an increase in litigation in the appellate courts.

''Considering the facts of the case in hand and the other similar cases coming across before this Court not adhering to the guidelines given in Rajnesh’s case (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate the aforesaid 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. Ordered accordingly.''

In the current case, the Court emphasized that the fundamental objective in such proceedings is the well-being and welfare of the child. The Court noted that the High Court had reduced the monthly maintenance amount from ₹20,000 to ₹7,500 with the sole justification that the father had previously been involved in business and was presently facing financial difficulties. The Court found fault with the High Court's decision to modify the order, especially considering the Family Court's thorough and well-reasoned explanation for the initial maintenance amount.

Case Title: ADITI ALIAS MITHI V. JITESH SHARMA 

Click here to Read/Download the Order