Maintenance quantum must be determined through evidence-based assessment of both parties’ financial circumstances.

The parties married in 2019 and later began living separately. The wife, a MCA graduate, sought maintenance in M.C. No. 7 of 2022; the husband, an MSW graduate, opposed the claim.

The trial court awarded her ₹12,000 per month.

In revision, the husband challenged the award as unsupported by evidence and also relied on copies of birth certificates said to show that the wife had two children with another man.

The High Court noted that neither party had led evidence before the trial court and that the certificates, issued after the impugned order, had not been proved.

In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court directed parties to maintenance proceedings to file affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities and required courts to assess maintenance by applying the relevant criteria, while permitting consideration of other relevant factors.

Under Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, retrial is justified only in exceptional circumstances to prevent a miscarriage of justice; the court must give reasoned grounds for finding such prejudice, and the cited decision states that a retrial wipes out the evidence and record of the previous trial.

The High Court invoked Sections 442 and 427 BNSS as the source of its power to remand the case for retrial.

The trial court had no evidentiary basis for determining either the wife’s maintenance needs or the husband’s income, and its order was internally unclear about what documents, if any, it had considered. It had also not addressed the disclosure affidavits required by Rajnesh.

Although the birth certificates identified the wife as the mother and another man as the father, they were unproved copies and therefore could not be relied upon in the revision; the court nevertheless considered that the evidence, if proved, could be material.

In view of the deficient record and the need for a reasoned determination, the court ordered a retrial, applying the exceptional-circumstances principles in Nasib Singh.

It directed the parties to have an opportunity to file additional pleadings and adduce evidence, and to file or update their affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities. The trial court was directed to complete the retrial within three months of receiving the order; the High Court’s observations were not to influence the retrial.