1
APHC010290042023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 533/2023
Between:
K.sreekanth Naik ...PETITIONER
AND
P Nalini and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SANDEEP BHAVAN PAMARATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1098/2023
Between:
Smt.P.Nalini ...PETITIONER
AND
K Srekanth Naik and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SANDEEP BHAVAN PAMARATI
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2022 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018
passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge,
Ananthapuram (for short, ‘the Family Court’), the Respondent/Husband in the
F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 filed Crl.R.C.No.533 of 2013 questioning the
correctness of the Order. In contrast, the Petitioner/Wife has filed
Crl.R.C.No.1098 of 2023 not being satisfied with the maintenance amount
granted by the Family Court. As both the Revisions arise out of order passed
in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, these Revisions are disposed of by common
Order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as
they are stated in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018.
3. F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 was filed by the Petitioner-Wife, under section
125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking to grant a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance to her.
4. After considering the evidence presented by both parties and
concluding the hearing, the Family Court has partly allowed the petition in
favour of the Petitioner against the Respondent. Consequently, the Family
Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month towards her maintenance.
5. During the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that both
parties have not complied with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court
3
enunciated in the judgment of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr.,1 concerning the filing
of affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. Considering the submissions
made, I have gone through the observations in Rajnesh V. Neha (cited supra)
case. The said judgment has brought revolutionary change in the procedure to
be followed by the Courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter
IX of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive
procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter
alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file
affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered
by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a
dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved
person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite
side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or
misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under section
340 of the Cr.P.C., or for Contempt of Court.
6. The exposition of law in Rajnesh case cited supra, was to remove the
stumbling blocks in the procedure and the inordinate delay being caused in
the disposal of maintenance applications and the enforcement of the orders.
7. The aforesaid Judgment in the case of Rajnesh (cited supra) has been
recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias
1
(2021) 2 SCC 324
4
2
Mithi V. Jitesh Sharma and expressing anguish over non-
compliance/improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of
Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance
thereof.
8. It is acknowledged that both parties have failed to submit the affidavits
disclosing their assets and liabilities. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has
relied on the decision of High Court of Patna in between Gitanjali Devi @
Gitanjali Kumari V. State of Bihar and another3, wherein, it is observed that
the impugned order of granting maintenance amount is liable to be set aside
for the reason that it has not followed the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
9. By following the principles laid down in the Aditi alias Mithi’s case cited
supra, the High Court of Madras in Balram Dixit V. Smt. Kiran Dixit and
another (Criminal Revision No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024) also set
aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gwalior and further directed the both parties to submit fresh affidavits of
disclosure of assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with
the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of
Rajnesh’s case cited supra.
10. Learned counsels representing both sides submit that because of lack
of proper instructions, both parties could not comply with the directions of the
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451
3
Criminal Revision No.736 of 2018, dated 02.12.2023
5
Hon’ble Apex Court and at present, they are ready to comply with the
observations made in the judgments referred to supra, by filing the affidavits
and both parties submits that the Respondent-husband is paying interim
maintenance amount @ Rs.8,000/- per month vide orders dated 26.09.2019 in
Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2019 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 and he is ready to pay such
maintenance amount during the pendency of FCOPs and after its restoration.
11. In view of the same, this Court refrains from delving into the merits of
the case at this juncture, as the impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of
2018 is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the
procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
12. The impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, is accordingly,
set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court –
cum – VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu for fresh consideration
and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. This Court further directs the both parties to submit affidavits disclosing
their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the
directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh
(supra) before the Family Court. The Family Court must ensure strict
adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits are found to be lacking
in necessary particulars, the learned Judge shall direct to produce the relevant
information from the respective party.
6
14. The Family Court shall dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 afresh
after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if
any. In the meantime, the Respondent-husband is directed to pay
maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife till the
disposal of the FCOP. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
15. With the directions provided above, the Criminal Revision Cases are
disposed of accordingly.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Date: 25.04.2023
SAK
7
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 533/2023 & 1098/2023
Date: 25.04.2023
SAK
