Income disclosure via affidavit of assets and liabilities is mandatory for determining proportionate maintenance of a child.

The petitioner (wife) filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her minor daughter, claiming the respondent (husband) was an electrical engineer earning ₹40,000 per month

The Magistrate issued an ex parte order directing the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month after noting that service was effected

The husband challenged this in a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, claiming he never received notice and was a mechanic, not an engineer

The Revisional Court drastically reduced the maintenance to ₹4,000, citing that the wife was salaried, despite the wife’s non-appearance during the revision

The wife then moved the High Court challenging the reduction.

1. Whether the Revisional Court was justified in drastically reducing the maintenance amount without a plausible explanation or verification of the actual income of both parties

2. Whether the original ex parte order of the Magistrate was sustainable given the lack of evidence regarding the income and expenses of the parties

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the duty of parents to maintain a minor child

It relied on the principle that the responsibility to maintain a child lies upon both parents in equal share when both are in service

the court strictly applied the procedural mandate established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324, which necessitates the filing of an 'Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities' by both parties to determine the quantum of maintenance

The Court observed that both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court failed to accurately determine the financial status of the parties. The Magistrate’s order of ₹8,000 was based solely on the wife’s unsubstantiated statement because of the husband’s absence

Conversely, the Revisional Court reduced the amount to ₹4,000 based solely on the husband’s version without verifying if service was actually effected or investigating the wife’s income

The High Court noted that the petition was silent on the actual expenses for the child. Reasoning that the child's needs must be met while a fair trial is conducted, the court determined that the income of both parties must be formally ascertained via affidavits. To prevent hardship during the interim, the court balanced the conflicting claims by modifying the amount to ₹6,000

The court ordered the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be revived before the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Barrackpore, with a direction to dispose of it within six months. The parties were directed to file Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities as per the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines. Pending the final decision, the husband is directed to pay ₹6,000 per month as maintenance for the minor daughter starting from May 2026, which shall not be adjusted against prior payments