LexADITI ALIAS MITHI versus JITESH SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 247 : 2023 INSC 981 247 CASE DETAILS ADITI ALIAS MITHI v. JITESH SHARMA (Criminal Appeal No(S). 3446 of 2023) NOVEMBER 06, 2023 [VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant-minor daughter of the respondent-father is aggrieved of the order passed by the High Court by which the maintenance for the appellant ₹ 20,000/- per month, was reduced to ₹7,500/- per month by the High Court. Maintenance – The High Court has reduced the amount of maintenance from ₹20,000/- to ₹7,500/- – Propriety: Held: The manner in which maintenance payable u/s. 24 of the Hindu Mariage Act, 1955 or s.125 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by the Supreme Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, [2020] 13 SCR 1093: 2020 INSC 631 – The Guidelines were issued in exercise of powers u/Art. 136 r/w. Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, prescribing a uniform format of Affi davit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be fi led in maintenance proceedings – In the instant case, nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that affi davits were fi led by both the parties in terms of judgment of this Court in Rajnesh’s case, which was directed to be communicated to all the High Courts for further circulation to all the Judicial Offi cers for awareness and implementation – The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and is bereft of reasons – The same deserves to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh. [Paras 8,14 and 15] 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324: [2020] 13 SCR 1093 – relied on. Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi, (2022) 3 SCC 86 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.3446 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2023 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in CRR No.4939 of 2022. Appearances: Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Aniket Patel, Advs. for the Appellant. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. As per the offi ce report dated 30.10.2023, the respondent had refused to receive notice, hence, the service is deemed to be complete. 3. The appellant-minor daughter of the respondent-father is aggrieved of the order1 passed by the High Court2 by which the order3 passed by the Family Court4 was modifi ed. The Family Court had fi xed maintenance for the appellant ₹ 20,000/- per month, which was reduced to ₹ 7,500/- per month by the High Court. 1 Dated 28.06.2023 in Criminal Revision No.4939 of 2022 2 High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior 3 Dated 30.11.2022 4 Family Court, Guna 249 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the marriage between the mother of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2008. Out of the wedlock a boy and a girl were born. The custody of the boy is with the respondent whereas the appellant is living with the mother. A divorce petition was fi led by the respondent-husband in January 2018 before the Family Court. In May 2018 the appellant and her mother- Shikha Sharma fi led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. The divorce petition fi led by the respondent-husband was allowed by the Family Court on 10.09.2022. Vide order dated 30.11.2022, the Family Court partly allowed the application fi led by the appellant and her mother under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of ₹ 20,000/- per month for the appellant-minor daughter. The wife was denied any maintenance. The order qua that became fi nal. 5. The High Court vide impugned cryptic order has reduced the amount of maintenance from ₹ 20,000/- to ₹ 7,500/-. Despite service the respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court. He is shirking to take care of the appellant (minor daughter) who is 6-7 years of age at present. Prayer is that the impugned order passed by the High Court be set aside and that the order of the Family Court be restored. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book. 7. From a perusal of the order passed by the Family Court awarding maintenance of ₹ 20,000/- per month to the appellant (minor daughter), it is evident that th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.