She won the DV trial. Then the court ordered her to disclose assets again.

When a Wife Won, Then Had to Fight Again: The Bombay High Court Shuts Down a Husband’s Discovery Tactic

Mrs. Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal had already won. In February 2020, a Metropolitan Magistrate (DV Court) in Mumbai found that she and her minor daughter had suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband, Kulvinder Singh Bansal, and his family. The court ordered the husband to pay maintenance to each of them — the wife and the child — and a lump sum compensation. It was a decisive victory under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. But the husband appealed. And in that appeal, he tried a clever procedural move: he asked the Sessions Court to force both sides to file affidavits disclosing all their assets and liabilities, relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha. The Sessions Court agreed. The wife, now facing a re-litigation of her case through the backdoor, rushed to the Bombay High Court. On March 20, 2024, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh delivered a crisp, principled ruling: the Rajnesh v. Neha disclosure mandate applies only at the interim maintenance stage — not at the appellate stage after a final judgment. The husband’s application was quashed. The appeals were ordered to be decided on their merits.

The DV Case That Was Already Decided

The story begins with a domestic violence complaint filed by Mrs. Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal against her husband, Kulvinder Singh Bansal, and his relatives. The case was heard by the Metropolitan Magistrate (DV Court), who, after a full trial, concluded that domestic violence was indeed proved. The operative order was clear: the husband was to pay maintenance to the wife, maintenance to the minor daughter, and a one-time compensation to the wife. This was a final adjudication on the merits, based on evidence led by both sides.

Dissatisfied, the husband filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the Sessions Court, Borivali Division at Dindoshi. That appeal — Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2021 — was pending. So was a connected appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2021. The husband was the appellant, challenging the very foundation of the trial court’s order.

The Husband’s Move: A Discovery Application in the Appeal

During the pendency of the appeal, the husband filed a miscellaneous application — Exhibit-4 — before the Sessions Court. His argument was straightforward: the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 had directed that in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings, parties must file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities. Since an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, he argued, this direction must apply here too. The Sessions Court agreed. On December 8, 2023, it allowed the application and directed both parties to file their disclosure affidavits.

For the wife, this was a disaster. She had already fought a full trial. She had already led evidence. The trial court had already made findings. Now, at the appellate stage, she was being asked to open her financial life all over again — and worse, the husband could use this new material to challenge the very basis of the trial court’s order. She moved the Bombay High Court in writ jurisdiction.

What Each Side Argued

The wife’s counsel, appearing before Justice Deshmukh, made a simple but powerful point: the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines on disclosure affidavits were designed for the interim maintenance stage — where the court has no evidence before it and needs a quick snapshot of the parties’ financial positions to decide a temporary maintenance amount. Once a final judgment has been passed after a full trial, that stage is over. To now require disclosure affidavits would be to introduce new material into the appeal, which would have to be tested as evidence — something an appellate court cannot do in a summary manner.

The husband’s counsel countered with the literal text of Rajnesh v. Neha. The Supreme Court had said “in all maintenance proceedings including pending proceedings.” An appeal, he argued, is a pending proceeding. The direction was clear and mandatory. The Sessions Court was right to enforce it.

The High Court’s Answer: Context is Everything

Justice Deshmukh did not accept the husband’s literal reading. She went back to the text of Rajnesh v. Neha itself — not just the operative directions, but the context in which they were made. The Supreme Court in that case was dealing with a chaotic landscape: multiple forums (family court, criminal court under Section 125 CrPC, DV Act), overlapping claims, and a lack of uniform data to decide interim maintenance. The Court’s solution was to mandate a standardised Affidavit of Disclosure so that the court deciding interim maintenance would have a baseline of financial information.

“The directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha requiring filing of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in all maintenance proceedings including pending proceedings are confined to the stage of deciding applications for interim maintenance,” the High Court held. “They do not extend to appellate proceedings challenging the final judgment of a trial court in domestic violence proceedings.”

The reasoning was sharp. At the interim stage, the court is making a quick, provisional order based on limited material. The disclosure affidavit fills a gap. But at the appellate stage, the trial court has already decided the case after a full trial, with evidence led and cross-examined. To now bring in a new affidavit of assets and liabilities would be to introduce fresh material that would have to be tested on the touchstone of evidence — something an appellate court cannot do without remanding the case or converting the appeal into a trial.

The Court added a memorable observation: “The filing of Affidavit of Disclosure cannot be recited as a mantra regardless of the stage of the proceedings. Its detrimental impact would be re-adjudication of issues concluded by the Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence.”

The Doctrine That Mattered: Stage-Specific Application of Supreme Court Guidelines

The core legal principle here is not new, but its application to the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines is significant. The High Court essentially held that Supreme Court directions, even when phrased broadly, must be read in the context of the problem they were designed to solve. The problem in Rajnesh v. Neha was the lack of information at the interim maintenance stage. The solution — the disclosure affidavit — was tailored to that problem. It cannot be mechanically extended to a different stage — the appellate stage — where the problem is different and the solution would cause more harm than good.

This is a classic example of ratio decidendi versus obiter dicta. The Supreme Court’s broad language (“in all maintenance proceedings including pending proceedings”) could be read as a universal command. But the High Court, by examining the context, limited its application to the specific stage for which it was intended. This is a reminder to every litigator: never read a Supreme Court judgment like a statute. Read it like a solution to a problem.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates practising in family law and domestic violence cases, this judgment is a critical tool. If you are representing a party who has already won a final order in a DV case, and the other side tries to use Rajnesh v. Neha to force a fresh round of financial disclosure at the appellate stage, you now have a direct High Court precedent to resist it. The Bombay High Court has drawn a clear line: the disclosure affidavit is for the interim maintenance stage, not for appeals against final judgments.

For CFOs and founders reading this: the principle applies beyond family law. Whenever a court or tribunal issues a broad direction, always ask: what problem was it solving? At what stage of the proceedings was it meant to operate? The answer will often limit the scope of the direction.

THE PLAY: When opposing counsel cites Rajnesh v. Neha to demand disclosure affidavits at the appellate stage after a final DV judgment, cite Mrs. Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal v. Kulvinder Singh Bansal & Ors. (2024:BHC-AS:13488) to argue that the disclosure mandate is confined to the interim maintenance stage and cannot be used to re-open concluded issues.

The Bottom Line

The Bombay High Court has quashed the Sessions Court’s order directing disclosure affidavits, and directed the Sessions Court to decide the husband’s appeal on its own merits — without the new material. The message is clear: a final judgment cannot be undermined by a procedural application that was never meant for that stage. If you have won a DV case, your victory stands. The other side cannot use Rajnesh v. Neha as a backdoor to re-litigate your finances.