The Court identifies violations in evidence recording and non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines in maintenance proceedings under BNSS, 2023.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has remanded a maintenance case back to the trial court for fresh adjudication, citing procedural irregularities and non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines. The case, "Karnam Upendra v. K. Parameswari," highlights significant procedural and compliance issues within maintenance proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
In the revision case filed by Karnam Upendra, the petitioner challenged the order of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Court, Tirupati, which granted monthly maintenance to K. Parameswari and her minor son. The High Court, presided over by Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., observed that the trial court erred in accepting evidence through chief-examination affidavits, contrary to the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 145(2) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.).
The court noted that the statutory provisions necessitate evidence to be recorded in the presence of the opposite party, a requirement that was overlooked when the trial court relied on affidavit evidence. This procedural lapse was deemed a significant irregularity that undermines the legality of the order.
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the trial court's failure to enforce the financial disclosure guidelines mandated by the Supreme Court in "Rajnesh v. Neha." The apex court's directives require detailed affidavits disclosing assets, income, liabilities, and financial capacities, enabling a fair adjudication of maintenance claims. The absence of such disclosures was considered a critical omission, impacting the trial court's ability to make an informed decision.
Acknowledging these deficiencies, the High Court remanded the case for re-evaluation, mandating the trial court to adhere to the prescribed procedures and guidelines. The court also directed that interim maintenance, as previously ordered, should continue until a fresh decision is made.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder for judicial officers to comply strictly with procedural mandates and Supreme Court guidelines, ensuring transparency and fairness in maintenance proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C (Section 144 of BNSS) require adherence to mandatory procedures for recording evidence under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C (Section 145(2) of BNSS). Evidence by way of chief-examination affidavit is impermissible, and financial disclosures mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha must be strictly complied with.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 144, 145(2), Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines.
Karnam Upendra v. K. Parameswari, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2944591
