A party forfeiting sufficient hearing opportunities cannot later challenge the interim maintenance order.

The petitioner-husband challenged the order dated 28 March 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra, in Maintenance Case No. 34 of 2023.

The Family Court had rejected his application seeking an opportunity to be heard on the opposite party-wife’s interim-maintenance application.

The wife’s application had been allowed by order dated 1 October 2024, granting her interim maintenance of ₹7,000 per month.

The petitioner contended that he had not been heard and that the wife had failed to disclose that she was already receiving ₹5,000 per month pursuant to an order dated 7 December 2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44095 of 2023.

The wife opposed the revision, asserting that the petitioner had been granted several opportunities but had failed to file a rejoinder or the affidavit of assets and liabilities required under Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324].

1. Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing on the wife’s interim-maintenance application, warranting interference with the Family Court’s order dated 28 March 2025.

2. Whether the wife’s alleged non-disclosure of the ₹5,000 monthly payment required the interim-maintenance order to be set aside.

3. Whether the questions concerning disclosure, adjustment, or set-off of amounts received in collateral proceedings could be examined at the interim stage or should be left for final adjudication by the Family Court.

The Court applied the principle that a litigant who has been granted sufficient opportunities but fails to avail them cannot subsequently challenge the proceeding on the ground that he was not heard or that the order was passed in his absence.

It also relied on the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324, concerning disclosure through affidavits of assets and liabilities and adjustment or set-off of maintenance amounts awarded in previous maintenance proceedings.

The Court further recognised that interim-maintenance orders are provisional and transient, and that issues affecting the final quantum of maintenance may be considered by the Family Court while passing the final order.

The Court found that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities by the Family Court but failed to file a rejoinder to the interim-maintenance application or the requisite affidavit under Rajnesh v. Neha.

He therefore could not take advantage of his own failure and later contend that the interim order was passed without hearing him.

Regarding the wife’s non-disclosure of the ₹5,000 payment, the Court observed that the payment was not made pursuant to a prior maintenance proceeding, and the wife’s submission that it technically fell outside the disclosure requirement could theoretically be accepted.

Nevertheless, since the payment constituted income or financial support received by her, it ought to have been disclosed in the affidavit of assets and liabilities.

The Court held that this omission could be examined by the Family Court while determining the final maintenance, and did not justify interference at the interim stage.

The Court affirmed the interim-maintenance order and the Family Court’s refusal to reopen the hearing, holding that the petitioner had failed to avail the opportunities granted to him.

However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise all relevant issues—including the wife’s receipt of ₹5,000 per month and any consequential adjustment or set-off—before the Family Court during final adjudication.