Kerala High Court reminds courts dealing with maintenance cases to follow Supreme Court guidelines

The Kerala High Court recently directed all courts in the State that deal with maintenance cases to strictly comply with the Supreme Court's guidelines on the award of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Ratheesh S v Sreelekshmi S & ors]..Justice Kauser Edappagath made the observation while setting aside a family court order directing a man to pay interim maintenance to his wife and child, which was passed without taking on record any affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities of any party. An affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities is a legal document where a person lists their income, expenses, property, debts, and other financial details.Notably, in the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnesh v Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the top court had mandated the filing of such affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities in all maintenance cases.The top court had reasoned that such a measure was necessary since in maintenance cases, there was a tendency for wives to exaggerate their needs and for men to conceal their actual income..In a March 14 ruling, the High Court emphasised that this and other guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Rajnesh v. Neha case are mandatory. The Court, therefore, issued a general directive to all courts in the State handling maintenance matters to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines."All the Courts in the State dealing with maintenance cases are directed to strictly follow the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) that before passing a final order of maintenance or interim order of maintenance, the parties should be directed to file Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities and the order should be passed based on the pleadings, evidence as well as the disclosure made in the affidavits," the Court ordered. .The Court passed the order on a petition by a man who challenged an interim maintenance order issued by a Kollam family court in favour of his wife and child. The family court had directed the man (petitioner) to pay ₹5,000 per month each to his wife and child as interim maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC.The petitioner argued that the family court passed the order without obtaining the mandatory disclosure affidavits from both parties and was therefore liable to be quashed. His wife's counsel maintained that the family court relied on relevant materials and that the absence of affidavits did not invalidate the interim maintenance order..The Court eventually set aside the family court order since it was passed without following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the Rajnesh case. The Court observed that the Supreme Court's guidelines were issued to make the process of granting maintenance more organised and fair, by making it compulsory for both sides (the person seeking maintenance and the person asked to pay) to submit their financial details.The Court also noted that despite clear Supreme Court directions, many courts in Kerala still issued maintenance orders without requiring both parties to file mandatory affidavits disclosing their financial status."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," it said. .The Court proceeded to set aside the interim maintenance order under challenge and sent the matter back to the family court for fresh consideration..The petitioner was represented by advocate R Kishore, while his wife and child were represented by advocate Binu George.Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth appeared for the state..[Read Judgement]