Shri. Tushar S/o. Bhimraj Shambharkar vs Mrs. Reena Tushar Shambharkar & Anr.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. R.S. Khobragade, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms Payal Kaware, learned counsel for respondents.

The applicant has approached this Court challenging the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, in Petition No. E-584/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has awarded an amount towards maintenance. The applicant is challenging the said order on the ground that the Assets and Liabilities Certificate/affidavit of disclosure was not available on record and, therefore, the determination of the maintenance amount was made without duly considering the financial position, assets, liabilities and income of the parties. As directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities was never filed before the learned Trial Court. In the absence of such disclosure, the learned Trial Court, without there being any proper material on record regarding the respective income, assets and liabilities of the parties, proceeded to assess the financial position of the parties. The learned Trial Court, while observing that the income of the respondent no.1 from all sources, her day-to-day needs, the educational expenses of the child, the prevailing prices of essential commodities and the standard of living of the parties initially awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.2-daughter, thereby totalling Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition. The learned Trial Court further directed payment of final maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.12,000/- per month to respondent No.2-daughter, totalling Rs.27,000/- per month, thereafter. According to the learned Counsel, the determination of the quantum of maintenance, in the absence of the requisite disclosure contemplated under the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra), amounts to a gross violation of the binding directions issued therein. Learned Counsel further submits that the quantum of maintenance determined by the learned Family Court is not supported by any cogent material available on record. The impugned order, according to the applicant, reflects non-application of mind and appears to have been passed mechanically, on the basis of hypothetical considerations, without undertaking a proper assessment of the actual income, assets, liabilities and financial circumstances of the parties. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

As against this, Ms. Kaware, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, strongly opposes the present Revision Application. She submits that the learned Family Court has duly considered the material available on record, particularly Exhibit-53, being the employment letter issued by the employer, which indicates that the applicant-husband was receiving a salary of approximately Rs.70,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the salary particulars and other benefits reflected therein and has rightly assessed the applicant-husband’s total annual income at approximately Rs.9,00,000/-. Learned Counsel further submits that, in view of the aforesaid material, the learned Family Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the applicant-husband has sufficient means to pay maintenance to the respondents. It is submitted that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the applicant’s income from all sources, the expenses relating to the education and upbringing of the minor child, the school fees, as well as the requirement of maintaining the status and standard of living of the parties. On such consideration, the learned Family Court has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.27,000/-per month to the respondents.

Ms. Kaware, learned Counsel, submits that though there may not be a specific reference to the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in the impugned order, such affidavits were in fact filed not only by the applicant-husband but also by the respondent-wife and which were available on the record of the learned Family Court. She further submits that the bank statements, income-tax returns and other relevant documents pertaining to the income and financial circumstances of both the applicant-husband and the respondent-wife were also brought on record and were available for consideration by the learned Family Court. Learned Counsel submits that the aforesaid documents contained the relevant material necessary for assessing the respective financial positions of the parties and for determining the quantum of maintenance. The learned Family Court, upon consideration of the material available on record, has rightly awarded final maintenance of Rs.27,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has also taken into consideration the fact that interim maintenance was earlier been awarded at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. The learned Family Court thereafter, upon considering the material on record and the requirements of the respondent-wife and the minor child, enhanced the amount to Rs.27,000/- per month, with the enhanced amount being payable from the date of passing of the impugned order. According to the learned Counsel, merely because the impugned order does not make a specific reference to the Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, it cannot be said that the relevant material was not considered by the learned Family Court. The impugned judgment reflects due consideration of the relevant financial circumstances of the respondents and was passed after taking into account all material aspects necessary for determination of the quantum of maintenance. The impugned order is, therefore, just, proper and based on the material available on record and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

I have gone through the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court in Petition No.E-584/2022. The impugned judgment clearly reflects that there is not even a whisper regarding the Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities filed by the applicant-husband and the respondent-wife. The learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order awarding maintenance of Rs.27,000/- per month from the date of the order, has not referred to the said affidavits. The direction issued by the learned Family Court to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per month, therefore, appears to have been arrived at merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, without any proper assessment of the actual income, assets, liabilities and financial circumstances of the parties. In the absence of any finding based upon the Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, the quantum so determined cannot be said to have been arrived at on a legally sustainable basis. It is pertinent to note that the respondent-wife and the daughter were earlier granted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the learned Family Court enhanced the said amount to Rs.27,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned order. Even such enhancement has been made without making any reference whatsoever to the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities filed by the applicant-husband or the respondent-wife.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra), was pleased to hold as under:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi @ Misthi vs Jitesh Sharma, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1451 was pleased to hold as under :-

In the present case also, the impugned order does not reflect whether affidavits of assets and liabilities were filed by both the parties in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra). Though the learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that the affidavits of assets and liabilities, as required in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra), were filed on record, mere filing of the said affidavits, without considering and utilizing the information contained therein for determining the appropriate quantum of maintenance payable to the wife, does not serve the purpose for which the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued directions for filing such affidavits. The object underlying the directions issued in the landmark judgment of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra) is to enable the Court to assess the assets, income and liabilities of both parties and to arrive at a appropriate determination of the quantum of maintenance, having regard to the income of the husband and wife, their respective liabilities, statutory deductions and other relevant financial circumstances. The filing of affidavits of assets and liabilities is, therefore, not an empty formality to be completed merely to demonstrate compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the absence of any consideration of the assets, income, statutory deductions and liabilities of the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The learned Family Court, while enhancing the interim maintenance from Rs. 25,000/- to final maintenance of Rs. 27,000/-, has not adverted to the aforesaid relevant factors, which are required to be considered on the basis of the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra). The impugned order, therefore, suffers from an error.

Ms. Kaware, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, at this stage submits that the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities was in fact filed by both the applicant-husband and the respondent-wife before the learned Family Court. However, even if they were already on record, it was expected of the Trial Court to take the same into consideration while passing the impugned order awarding maintenance of Rs.27,000/- per month from the date of the order. The applicant has now placed on record a chart showing the calculations of the maintenance amounts paid by him in terms of the order dated 04.05.2026. On perusal of the said chart, it appears that the applicant has paid an amount of Rs.81,000/-for the period from 09.02.2026 to 01.04.2026, at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per month. It further appears that the applicant has paid an amount of Rs.7,60,000/- for the period from 07.11.2022 to 09.01.2026, at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. The applicant has, therefore, demonstrated his bona fides by depositing the aforesaid amounts in compliance with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2026. Having regard to the fact that the impugned order has been passed without due consideration of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra), and in particular, without making any reference to assessment on the basis of the Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities filed by the parties, it appears that the Trial Court has committed a patent error. Hence, I am of the considered view that the impugned order warrants interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, I am inclined to pass the following order:-

Revision Application is allowed and disposed of.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.