LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Aditi Alias Mithi vs Jitesh Sharma

Not available · 2023 INSC 981Decided 6 Nov 2023
Not available
Vikram Nath · Rajesh Bindal

Background

The appellant is the minor daughter of the respondent, born from a marriage that ended in divorce in 2022. The Family Court, Guna had awarded her maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month (denying maintenance to her mother, which became final), but the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a cryptic revisional order, reduced this to Rs. 7,500 per month on the ground that the respondent-father, previously in business, was now in financial distress. The respondent did not appear or contest the matter before the Supreme Court despite being served.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court reiterated the detailed guidelines laid down in its earlier decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) for determining maintenance, particularly the mandatory filing of a standardised Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities by both parties, and noted that courts across the country, including in this case, were still failing to follow this procedure years after it was laid down. Since neither party had filed such an affidavit and the High Court's order reducing maintenance was unreasoned ("cryptic and bereft of reasons"), the Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back to it for fresh consideration, directing that the respondent be issued fresh notice to appear. It further directed the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to re-circulate the Rajnesh guidelines to all judicial officers through the High Courts and to the National and State Judicial Academies for training purposes.

Lesson Learnt

In maintenance disputes, courts are required to base their decisions on properly filed financial disclosure affidavits from both spouses/parents rather than on unsubstantiated claims of financial hardship, and a parent's duty to maintain a minor child cannot be curtailed by a court order that lacks reasoned justification.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case