Case Title: Rajnesh V. Neha
The Supreme Court had announced rules on the payment of support in marital cases in a key ruling. Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy's bench ruled that maintenance shall always be given from the day the application for maintenance was submitted.
"It is directed that maintenance orders or decrees may be carried out in accordance with Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 20(6) of the Domestic Violence Act, and Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as may be appropriate. According to the CPC's rules, including Sections 51, 55, 58, and 60 r.w. Order XXI, the maintenance order may be enforced as a monetary judgement of a civil court," the judge ruled.
Relying upon Gurvinder Singh v Murti & Ors, and Satish Kumar v. Meena, the bench's decision on the overlapping jurisdiction was as follows:
“The applicant is required to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein in the subsequent proceeding. (ii) It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein in the subsequent proceeding. (iii) If the order passed in the previous proceeding is not followed in the subsequent proceeding, the Court will consider an adjustment or setoff of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s.”
The court ordered that in all maintenance procedures, including those that are currently continuing before the relevant Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the nation, the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities must be filed by both parties.
The bench was deciding an appeal brought against a Delhi High Court ruling. The court designated senior attorneys Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Anitha Shenoy as Amicus Curiae to help them with this matter. They had, moreover, delivered a report on pertinent issues. The appeal was made in response to a Delhi High Court decision that upheld the Family Court's order mandating that the husband pay the wife an interim maintenance, and pay maintenance for the child, at a rate of Rs. 10,000 per month until further orders. While the Family Court case is pending, the woman has a right to a lifestyle that is comparable to the husband's, according to the High Court. The bench had seen the Facebook post where the spouse was boasting images of animals shot throughout the world with pricey camera and lens equipment, concluding that he was living a lavish lifestyle.