Mandatory Compliance with Asset Disclosure Guidelines is Prerequisite for Determining Quantum of Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC

The petitioner/husband challenged an order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Family Court, Damoh, which awarded the respondent/wife ₹15,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

The petitioner admitted a net monthly salary of ₹29,134.

Although the Family Court's order-sheet recorded that an affidavit of assets and liabilities had been filed per Supreme Court mandates, the High Court’s perusal of the record revealed that no such affidavit or salary slips were actually available.

The Family Court awarded nearly 50% of the husband's net income as maintenance without recording a specific finding on his total income or financial capacity.

1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding ₹15,000 per month as maintenance without recording a specific finding on the husband's income and in violation of established percentage-based precedents.

2. Whether the non-filing of the mandatory Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities and salary slips, as required by the Supreme Court’s guidelines, renders the maintenance order unsustainable.

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. regarding maintenance and Section 142 of the Constitution of India regarding the binding nature of Supreme Court guidelines.

It relied on Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021), which mandated the filing of a Comprehensive Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in maintenance cases.

It further applied Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy (2017), which held that 25% of the husband's net salary is generally considered a just and proper amount for maintenance.

Additionally, the court cited Anamika Jain v. Dr. Atul Jain (2026) and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma (2024) to emphasize that courts must consider the actual financial capacity and inflation rather than using a straitjacket formula, while strictly adhering to procedural guidelines.

The High Court observed that the Family Court failed to record a specific finding regarding the petitioner’s income, despite noting his oral admission of a ₹29,134 net salary.

By awarding ₹15,000, the Family Court exceeded the 25% benchmark established in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury without providing a reasoned justification for such a high proportion.

Most critically, the High Court found a total lack of compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of Rajnesh v. Neha. No salary slips or affidavits of assets were on record despite the Trial Court’s order-sheet falsely claiming their existence.

The Court emphasized that judicial discipline requires subordinate courts to follow these guidelines unreservedly to ensure uniformity and prevent "harassing uncertainty".

The matter required remand because the decision was "bereft of reasons" and lacked the evidentiary foundation mandated by law.

The Court remanded the case to the Family Court, Damoh, for a fresh decision after ensuring strict compliance with the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines.

However, as the husband had also failed to comply with the guidelines, he was ordered to continue paying ₹15,000 per month as an interim measure until the final disposal of the application.

Furthermore, the Court issued a general directive to all Family Courts in Madhya Pradesh to record in the first paragraph of their maintenance orders whether the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines were complied with, or provide reasons for non-compliance.