Geeta Devi v. Sunil Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
Financial disclosure for maintenance and alimony was addressed through revised guidelines requiring both spouses to file prescribed affidavits and supporting documents at the outset of matrimonial litigation. The Court extended the procedure to other maintenance proceedings and directed fresh affidavits in the pending appeals, without finally disposing of them.
What did the court decide?
Revised financial-disclosure guidelines issued; all parties directed to file fresh prescribed affidavits with documents within six weeks and responses within four weeks thereafter.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
PRAJAPATI SATYA DEV Digitally signed by PRAJAPATI SATYA DEV DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, ou=PRIVATE SECRETARY, cn=PRAJAPATI SATYA DEV, postalCode=110003, st=DELHI Date: 2015.01.24 16:49:13 +05'30'
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
+ Date of decision: 14th January, 2015
% FAO 369/1996
..... Appellant
KUSUM SHARMA ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Mr. Sunil Mittal, Amicus curiae
versus
MAHINDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Respondent Through : None.
WITH
FAO 297/1997, MAT.APP. 47/2005, MAT.APP. 64/2007, MAT.APP. 33/2010, MAT.APP. 35/2010, MAT.APP. 124/2010 MAT.APP. 36/2012 & MAT.APP. 8/2013
Present: Ms. Vandana Khurana, Advocate for the appellant in FAO 297/1997
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Should both spouses file comprehensive financial affidavits and supporting documents at the outset of matrimonial litigation, even without a maintenance application?
What disclosure format and safeguards should courts use to ascertain true income and expedite maintenance adjudication?
Should action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ordinarily await decision of the main matrimonial petition?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
KUSUM SHARMA
- respondent
MAHINDER KUMAR SHARMA
- respondent
Bhola Ram
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court