Aditi's maintenance was slashed by a cryptic order. The Supreme Court's blunt fix changes everything.

One cryptic order, one child’s maintenance slashed—and the Supreme Court’s blunt fix

Aditi—called Mithi at home—was a minor when her parents’ marriage fell apart. Her father filed for divorce in 2018. By September 2022, the Family Court in Guna had granted it. Then came the real fight: who pays for the child?

Aditi and her mother moved an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance. The Family Court, after hearing both sides, awarded the daughter maintenance. The mother got nothing. The father, Jitesh Sharma, wasn’t satisfied. He approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in criminal revision. That court, in a brief order dated 28 June 2023, slashed the daughter’s maintenance—citing the father’s “financial distress.”

No detailed reasoning. No examination of the father’s assets. No mention of the landmark guidelines the Supreme Court had laid down just two years earlier in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. Just a cryptic reduction.

Aditi appealed. The Supreme Court heard her on 6 November 2023. The father refused to accept notice and didn’t appear. The Bench—Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vikram Nath—didn’t need much persuasion. They set aside the High Court’s order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and directed something unusual: a re-circulation of the Rajnesh guidelines to every judicial officer in the country.

What the Family Court actually did

The Family Court, Guna, passed a detailed order on 30 November 2022. It awarded maintenance to the minor daughter. The mother’s claim was rejected—the court found she was capable of earning. But for the child, the court applied the settled principle: a minor’s maintenance cannot be compromised by parental disputes.

The father’s revision before the High Court was the first sign of trouble. The High Court’s order, running into barely a few paragraphs, noted the father’s submission that he was “financially distressed.” Without any independent verification, without calling for affidavits of assets and liabilities, the court reduced the amount.

The Supreme Court found this approach fundamentally flawed. “The impugned order passed by the High Court is cryptic and bereft of reasons,” the Bench observed. A revisional court, the Court held, cannot simply accept a party’s claim of financial distress without examining the material on record. The order had to be set aside.

The rule the High Court forgot

Two years before this case, the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha had issued comprehensive guidelines for all maintenance proceedings. The most critical requirement: every party must file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities. This affidavit, in a prescribed format, forces both sides to lay bare their income, property, investments, and liabilities. Without it, a court cannot determine the correct quantum of maintenance.

In Aditi’s case, neither the father nor the mother had filed such an affidavit. The Family Court had passed its order without this mandatory disclosure. The High Court, in revision, compounded the error by reducing maintenance without calling for the affidavit either.

The Supreme Court was blunt: “The guidelines issued in Rajnesh v. Neha are binding and must be complied with by all courts.” Non-compliance leads to inadequately determined maintenance amounts. The Court extracted paragraphs from Rajnesh that deal with the mandatory filing of disclosure affidavits, the criteria for determining quantum, and even the power to strike off the defence of a party who wilfully delays proceedings by not filing the affidavit—citing Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain (2020) 17 SCC 822.

THE PLAY: In every maintenance proceeding—whether under Section 125 CrPC, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, or any other law—insist on the filing of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities as prescribed in Rajnesh v. Neha. If the other side refuses, move to strike off their defence. If the court passes an order without it, that order is vulnerable.

Why the father’s obligation doesn’t end with divorce

The Supreme Court also reinforced a principle that often gets overlooked: a father’s duty to maintain his minor child survives divorce. The Court cited Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi (2022) 3 SCC 86, which held that even after divorce, the husband is not absolved of liability to maintain the child till majority. “The child should not suffer due to disputes between husband and wife,” the Court observed. “The child has a right to be maintained as per the status of the father.”

This is not a new principle. But it bears repeating because in practice, many litigants—and some courts—treat the child’s maintenance as an afterthought once the divorce is granted. The Supreme Court’s reminder is timely: the child’s right is independent of the parents’ marital status.

The obiter that could reshape practice

Justice Bindal’s judgment contains an observation that, while not necessary for the decision, signals a possible shift. “Where the wife’s earning is also good, that factor can always be considered as joint parenting is best for upbringing of the child,” the Court noted. “The basic object is the welfare of the child.”

This opens the door for a proportionate sharing of child maintenance expenses between both earning parents. The entire burden need not fall on the father alone. If the mother has a substantial income, the court can factor that in while determining the child’s maintenance. This is consistent with the modern understanding of shared parental responsibility—but it’s rarely articulated in Indian maintenance jurisprudence.

Practitioners should note this observation. In cases where the mother is well-employed, it can be used to argue for a reduced or shared maintenance burden. But the Court was careful to add that the child’s welfare remains paramount. The father cannot escape his obligation simply because the mother earns—but the quantum can be adjusted.

The re-circulation directive: a quiet revolution

The most striking part of the order is the direction to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to re-circulate the Rajnesh v. Neha judgment to all judicial officers through the High Courts, and to the National Judicial Academy and State Judicial Academies for inclusion in training programmes.

This is not a routine direction. It signals judicial frustration with the widespread non-compliance of the Rajnesh guidelines. Despite being a binding precedent, many trial courts and even High Courts continue to pass maintenance orders without insisting on disclosure affidavits. The result: arbitrary awards, endless litigation, and children caught in the crossfire.

The re-circulation directive is a quiet but powerful move. It puts every judicial officer on notice: the Supreme Court expects compliance. For advocates, this is a weapon. If the opposing party hasn’t filed the disclosure affidavit, or if the court has passed an order without it, you can now argue that the order is contrary to the Supreme Court’s mandate—and therefore unsustainable.

What happens next for Aditi

The matter now goes back to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court has directed the High Court to issue notice to the father for his appearance. This time, the High Court must follow the Rajnesh guidelines. It must call for affidavits of disclosure from both parties. It must examine the father’s actual financial capacity—not just accept his claim of distress. And it must pass a reasoned order.

The ball is now in the High Court’s court. But the Supreme Court has made it clear: cryptic orders will not stand. The child’s maintenance cannot be reduced on a whim.

The bottom line for practitioners

This judgment is a masterclass in what not to do in maintenance proceedings. The High Court’s error was simple: it reduced maintenance without reasons, without evidence, and without following binding precedent. The Supreme Court’s remedy was equally simple: set aside, remand, and re-circulate the guidelines.

For advocates handling maintenance cases, the takeaway is clear. File the disclosure affidavit at the earliest opportunity. If the other side doesn’t, move for striking off their defence. If the court passes an order without the affidavit, challenge it. And if you’re appearing before a High Court in revision, remind the Bench that Rajnesh is not optional—it’s the law.

One sentence to remember: No maintenance order is safe unless it is backed by the mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities as required by Rajnesh v. Neha—and any order that reduces maintenance without reasons is liable to be set aside.