RAHUL RANJAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties are present.

(2.) This petition has been filed challenging the judgment dtd. 27/8/2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Original Maintenance Case No. 316 of 2018, whereby the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs.5,000.00 per month to the opposite party No. 2 (wife of the petitioner) and Rs.5,000.00 per month to opposite party No. 3 (minor daughter of the petitioner) towards maintenance. It has also been directed that the maintenance would be payable from the date of filing of the petition and the arrears of maintenance was directed to be paid in ten equal installments. Further, Rs.5,000.00 has been awarded as litigation cost.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, has submitted that though the impugned order has been passed on 27/8/2021 but the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 dtd. 4/11/2020 has not been followed, inasmuch as, the required affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in terms of the enclosure to the said judgment has not been filed and the present petitioner had claimed that the applicant-his wife was a working lady. He has submitted that on this count, the impugned order calls for interference. The learned counsel submits that as per the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the required affidavit was to be filed in all the pending proceedings as well.