MP High Court: courts must enforce Rajnesh v. Neha disclosure and justify maintenance below a quarter of income

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, sitting at Jabalpur, set aside a Family Court order in Katni that had awarded a wife ₹30,000 a month in maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Family Court had itself assessed the husband's monthly income at ₹1,50,000. The husband had undertaken to produce his salary slip but never did. The High Court restated the Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha, issued under Article 142, which require both parties in maintenance cases to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities.

They also allow courts to strike off the defence of a party who wilfully delays. The High Court said these guidelines bind all courts and must be followed in letter and spirit. It held that the Family Court should either have secured the salary documents or drawn an adverse inference against the husband, including considering striking off his defence. Referring to Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, where the Supreme Court said that ordinarily one-quarter of the husband's net salary may be a reasonable maintenance amount, it held that the Family Court had to give reasons for fixing a lower sum.

It also found that the record showed no delay by the wife between 2021 and 2024. The matter was sent back for a fresh decision on the amount and its start date, with ₹30,000 to be paid meanwhile.