Dad got daughter's maintenance slashed from ₹20,000 to ₹7,500. SC said: not so fast.

A father's monthly payment to his minor daughter was cut by over 60%—but the judge who did it barely explained why. The Supreme Court just stepped in.

Can a High Court cut a child's maintenance by more than half without giving a single reason that holds up to scrutiny? The Supreme Court's answer, on November 6, 2023, was a firm no.

When the Family Court said ₹20,000

The parents married in 2008. Two children followed. By 2018, the father had filed for divorce. The Family Court at Guna, Madhya Pradesh, granted the divorce on September 10, 2022.

But the divorce was not the end. The mother and her minor daughter—the appellant, Aditi alias Mithi—filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC (a provision that allows wives, children, and parents to claim monthly support from a spouse or parent who refuses to maintain them).

The Family Court heard both sides. The mother's hands trembled as she placed the school fee receipts on the judge's desk—a stack of papers that told the story of a child's needs: tuition, books, uniforms, medical visits. The judge's glasses slid down his nose as he read each document, then turned to the father's salary slip, a single sheet that seemed thin against the pile of expenses. He passed a detailed, reasoned order on November 30, 2022. It awarded the daughter ₹20,000 per month. The mother's claim for maintenance was denied. The father was unhappy.

The Family Court judge's order ran several pages, each paragraph dissecting the father's financial position. The record was thick with the family's history—the 2008 marriage, the birth of two children, the divorce petition filed in 2018, and the eventual decree of September 2022.

The High Court's cryptic order

The father challenged the Family Court's order in revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. A revisional court (a higher court that reviews a lower court's decision for legal errors) can correct orders that are illegal or improper.

The High Court agreed with the father. On June 28, 2023, it reduced the daughter's monthly maintenance from ₹20,000 to ₹7,500. The reasoning? A single phrase: the father's "financial distress." No analysis of his income. No examination of his assets. No discussion of the daughter's needs. Just a brief order that cut the amount by over 60%.

The minor daughter, through her mother, approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 3446 of 2023.

Why the father didn't show up

When the Supreme Court issued notice to the father, he refused to accept it. He did not appear before the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal. The court clerk's voice echoed in the empty well of the courtroom as he called out the father's name—once, twice, then silence. A single sheet of paper—the father's refusal of notice—lay on the bench, its edges curling slightly in the still air. The Court proceeded to hear the matter on its merits, relying on the record before it.

The father's absence meant the Court had only the daughter's side of the story. But the record itself was enough to raise serious questions about the High Court's order.

The missing affidavits

The Supreme Court noticed something critical. Neither party had filed the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities that the Supreme Court itself had mandated in its landmark judgment Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. That judgment required every party in a maintenance proceeding—including pending cases—to file a sworn statement listing all assets, income, bank accounts, investments, and liabilities.

The purpose of this affidavit is simple: maintenance cannot be fixed properly unless the court knows what each party actually owns and earns. Without it, a judge is essentially guessing.

The Family Court at Guna had passed a detailed order despite this gap. The High Court had done the opposite—it had used the gap to justify a drastic reduction.

The Rajnesh guidelines, which the Supreme Court had painstakingly crafted, were designed to prevent exactly this kind of situation. The judgment had arisen from the recognition that maintenance proceedings across the country were plagued by incomplete information. Parties would claim poverty while hiding assets, or exaggerate needs without proof. The solution was a standardised affidavit form that every party in every maintenance case—whether under Section 125 CrPC, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, or any other provision—must file before the first hearing.

The affidavit covers salary slips, income tax returns for the last three years, bank account statements, details of immovable property, investments in shares and mutual funds, insurance policies, vehicles, and even jewellery. It also requires a declaration of liabilities, including loans and credit card debts. The idea is to put everything on the table so the court can make an informed decision.

In Rajnesh, the Supreme Court had also directed that if a party fails to file the affidavit, the court can draw an adverse inference against that party. It can also refuse to entertain the party's claims or defences until the affidavit is filed. The guidelines were meant to be enforced strictly, not treated as suggestions.

Yet, as the present case showed, courts were still ignoring them. The Family Court at Guna had proceeded without the affidavits. The High Court had done the same. The Supreme Court's frustration was evident in its decision to order a re-circulation of the Rajnesh judgment to every judicial officer in the country.

What the Supreme Court found wrong

The bench was blunt. "The impugned order is cryptic and bereft of reasons," the judges wrote in their judgment, reported as 2023 INSC 981. A revisional court, the judges said, cannot reduce maintenance by simply noting a party's claimed financial distress without examining the material on record.

The Court held that the High Court had failed to apply its mind. It had not considered the daughter's needs, the father's earning capacity, or the standard of living the child was entitled to. It had not even asked for the mandatory affidavits that would have given it the facts needed to make a fair decision.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order. It sent the matter back for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to issue notice to the father and hear the case properly.

But the Court did not stop there.

The Rajnesh guidelines get a second life

The Supreme Court directed its Secretary General 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. The message was clear: the guidelines are not optional. Every court dealing with maintenance must enforce them.

The Rajnesh guidelines require both parties to file a comprehensive affidavit of disclosure before the first hearing. The affidavit covers salary slips, income tax returns, bank statements, property documents, investments, and liabilities. If a party fails to file it, the court can draw an adverse inference against that party.

The Supreme Court had also clarified in Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi (2022) 3 SCC 86 and Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain (2020) 17 SCC 822 that maintenance proceedings require a holistic assessment of the parties' financial positions. A cryptic order defeats that purpose.

The ratio of the judgment is clear: a revisional court's order reducing maintenance must contain adequate reasons; a cryptic order that merely notes claimed financial distress without proper examination of material on record is liable to be set aside. Further, the Rajnesh guidelines mandating the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in all maintenance proceedings, including pending ones, are binding and must be complied with by all courts. Non-compliance leads to inadequately determined maintenance amounts.

The case also highlights the importance of procedural rigour in maintenance matters. Section 125 CrPC is a provision designed to prevent destitution. It is meant to ensure that wives, children, and parents do not fall into poverty because the person legally obliged to support them refuses to do so. When a court reduces maintenance without proper reasoning, it undermines this protective purpose.

The Supreme Court's intervention in this case was also significant because of the father's refusal to participate. By proceeding despite his absence, the Court sent a message that a party cannot avoid a maintenance obligation simply by refusing to accept notice. The Court will examine the record and decide the matter on its merits.

THE PLAY: If you are arguing a maintenance case—whether for a client or for yourself—file the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities on day one. A court that has the full financial picture is far less likely to cut maintenance on a vague claim of "financial distress."

What this means for every maintenance case

For practitioners, the message is twofold. First, a revisional court cannot reduce maintenance in a one-line order. The Supreme Court has now made it clear that any such order must contain reasons that can be tested on appeal. Second, the Rajnesh affidavit is not a formality. It is the foundation on which maintenance is determined. Without it, any order—whether granting or denying maintenance—is vulnerable.

For litigants, the case is a reminder that the Supreme Court will step in when a child's right to maintenance is compromised without proper reasoning. A minor daughter cannot argue her own case. The Court becomes her voice.

The father's financial distress may have been real. But the High Court never proved it. And that is why the Supreme Court sent the case back.