Maintenance after Rajnesh v. Neha: clearer rules, fewer surprises

The problem the Court addressed

A spouse seeking maintenance could claim it under several laws at once, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the secular provision now in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (formerly Section 125 CrPC). The result was sometimes inconsistent orders and double recovery, or long delays.

The guidelines

In Rajnesh v. Neha the Supreme Court required both parties to file a sworn Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, directed that maintenance is ordinarily payable from the date of the application rather than the date of the order, and held that a court fixing maintenance in one proceeding must account for what has been awarded in another, so that the paying spouse is not made to pay twice for the same period.

The Court also confirmed that the secular maintenance remedy is available regardless of religion, a position reinforced in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, where it held that a divorced Muslim woman may claim maintenance under that provision in addition to her rights under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

What it means in practice

The disclosure affidavit has become central. Accurate, complete disclosure of income and assets, and a careful account of any maintenance already ordered, now shape the outcome more than broad submissions about need or means.