When Family Courts adjudicate maintenance claims without affidavits of assets/liabilities, the order will not be set aside unless the judgment shows patent illegality or infirmity. This judgment affirms compliance with Supreme Court guidelines is crucial, but not every procedural lapse warrants interference. It upholds precedent and will serve as binding authority for subordinate courts in maintenance matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/1262/2025 of SMT. SUNITA CHOUDHARY Vs KAMAL CHOUDHARY |
| CNR | CGHC010407972025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (Ramesh Sinha) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms both the impugned Family Court order and Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) |
| Type of Law | Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether non-filing of affidavits of assets and liabilities by both parties, contrary to the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines, vitiates the Family Court’s order on maintenance and justifies interference in revision. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that even if affidavits of assets and liabilities were not filed by either party as mandated by Rajnesh v. Neha, interference is not warranted unless there is patent illegality or infirmity in the Family Court’s order. The Court found that, based on an overall consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and impugned order, there was no error requiring reversal. The Family Court’s order, though lacking compliance with procedural directions, did not reflect any substantive injustice or incorrect application of law. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court guidelines regarding maintenance adjudication under various statutes, especially in relation to procedure for ascertainment of parties’ financial status. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Applicant-wife and Non-Applicant-husband married in June 2020, cohabited for 15 days, after which the wife alleged abuse and dowry demand, leading to her expulsion from the matrimonial home. She filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in July 2023. The husband denied all allegations. The Family Court rejected the maintenance application without affidavits of assets/liabilities from either party and without detailed determination of financial status. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts deciding on Section 125 CrPC, especially regarding Rajnesh v. Neha compliance |
| Follows | Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Rejection of a Section 125 CrPC maintenance application will not automatically be vitiated solely due to non-filing of required affidavits if no substantive illegality or error is shown.
- Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines, though obligatory, are seen as directory in terms of appellate/revisional interference unless their violation leads to miscarriage of justice.
- Family Courts’ procedural lapses—if not affecting the ultimate justice or legal soundness of the order—may not invite interference in revision.
- Lawyers should ensure timely filing of affidavits, but also be prepared to substantiate substantive prejudice, not mere procedural lapse, in revision/appeal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court considered the impugned Family Court order and noted that both parties were heard and had adduced evidence.
- The Family Court had not required affidavits of assets and liabilities from either party as per Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh v. Neha.
- Despite procedural deviation, the High Court found after reviewing the record that there was no illegality or infirmity justifying interference.
- The High Court saw the Family Court’s decision as within jurisdiction, given the evidence and statements available.
- Rajnesh v. Neha was cited in support of the principles governing maintenance claims and the importance of financial disclosure, but the non-compliance was not fatal in this instance.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicant-wife)
- The order is bad in law and failed to consider relevant facts, especially her lack of income and critical medical condition (loss of vision in both eyes).
- The husband’s abusive conduct, dowry demand, and refusal to resume cohabitation compelled her to live separately.
- The Family Court failed to ascertain financial status as neither party filed affidavits of assets and liabilities.
- The impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the facts and evidence.
Respondent (Non-applicant-husband)
- Denied all allegations of abuse, dowry demand, and refusal to resume cohabitation as stated in the application under Section 125 CrPC.
Factual Background
The applicant and non-applicant married in June 2020 and lived together for about 15 days before marital discord surfaced, including accusations of dowry demand and abuse. The applicant alleged she was forced out and attempts at reconciliation failed. She filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on 22.07.2023, including an interim maintenance request. The Family Court rejected her claim after evidence was led by both sides, without requiring affidavits revealing the parties’ financial status.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), relating to maintenance for wives, was the main statute involved.
- The Court underscored the procedural guidelines from Rajnesh v. Neha regarding disclosure of assets and liabilities by both parties in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
- No narrow or expansive interpretation was adopted; the Court affirmed that non-compliance with the guidelines—while incorrect—does not in itself vitiate the judgment absent substantive error.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment addresses delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing a 60-day delay in filing the criminal revision.
- No new procedural guidelines were introduced; the Court reiterated strict compliance with existing directives on maintenance but did not innovate on procedure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms the principles and guidelines already laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021).