Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Jeevanjyoti Kaur Bansal, filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated 8th December 2023 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2021. The Sessions Court had allowed Miscellaneous Application below Exhibit-4 and directed the parties to file affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. The petitioner contended that the direction to file such affidavits at the appellate stage was not warranted, as the guidelines did not mandate filing at that stage, especially when the trial court had already decided the maintenance applications without requiring such affidavits. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the State's APP, noted that the pivotal issue was whether filing of the Affidavit of Disclosure was mandatory at the appellate stage when it was not filed before the trial court. The court observed that the appeals were already pending for final hearing and the direction to file affidavits would delay the proceedings. The High Court held that the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha do not require filing of such affidavits at the appellate stage if not filed earlier, and the Sessions Court's order was not justified. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the Sessions Court to proceed with the appeals in accordance with law. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Affidavit of Disclosure - Section 125, 127, 482 CrPC - The issue was whether the Sessions Court could direct parties to file Affidavits of Disclosure of assets and liabilities under Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines at the appellate stage when such affidavits were not filed before the trial court. The High Court held that the direction to file affidavits at the appellate stage was not warranted as the guidelines do not mandate filing at that stage, and the appeals were already pending for final hearing. The impugned orders were set aside. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Appellate Stage - Section 125, 127 CrPC - The High Court considered that the trial court had already decided the maintenance applications without requiring affidavits, and the appellate court could not impose a new requirement at that stage. The court allowed the petitions and set aside the orders directing filing of affidavits. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the filing of Affidavit of Disclosure of assets and liabilities as per the directions of the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha is mandatory at the appellate stage when the same was not filed before the trial court.
Final Decision
The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 8th December 2023 passed by the Sessions Court are set aside. The Sessions Court is directed to proceed with the appeals in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Affidavit of Disclosure of assets and liabilities under Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines is not mandatory at the appellate stage if not filed earlier
- Section 125 CrPC
- Section 127 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
