Interim maintenance order upheld where husband failed to file mandatory affidavit of assets and liabilities.

The petitioner (husband) challenged an interim maintenance order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saran at Chapra in Maintenance Case No. 29 of 2021

The Family Court had directed the petitioner to pay ₹15,000 per month to Opposite Party (OP) No. 2 (wife).

The petitioner contended that the wife lives separately without reason, is employed as a private nurse, and that he carries significant financial burdens, including a ₹7,00,000 loan for the wife's professional training and home loan installments

Conversely, the wife alleged the petitioner’s net monthly salary is approximately ₹85,900 and noted she is caring for their two children

1. Whether the interim maintenance order of ₹15,000 per month was passed mechanically without considering the petitioner’s liabilities and the respondent’s alleged income?

2. Whether the petitioner’s failure to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities affects the validity of the Family Court's interim order?

The Court relied on the primary objective of maintenance laws, which is to prevent penury and starvation of a non-earning spouse and ensure the well-being of children

The Court applied the mandatory guidelines established by the Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh v. Neha Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324, which require both parties in maintenance proceedings to file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to enable the court to make an equitable financial determination

The High Court observed that the petitioner, despite being given sufficient opportunity, failed to file the mandatory affidavit of assets and liabilities as prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha

The Family Court was justified in relying on the affidavit filed by the wife and the available information regarding the petitioner's employment as a Constable in the Border Security Force

The Court noted that while the petitioner claimed a lower salary and high debts, he produced no documentary evidence or rebuttal during the trial proceedings to substantiate these claims

The Court found that the Family Court had duly considered the existing ₹5,000 per month currently being paid by the petitioner under a previous High Court order (Cr. Misc. No. 21720 of 2021), negating the petitioner's claim of non-adjustment

The High Court held that there was no infirmity, illegality, or impropriety in the impugned order... The Revision Petition was dismissed, affirming the interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month

The parties were granted liberty to raise further factual issues during the final hearing before the Family Court