Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Dimchangchirim K. Sangma vs . Smt. Chano Ch. Sangma. on 11 July, 2025
2025:MLHC:604
Serial No.49
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl. Rev.Petn. No. 10 of 2024 Date of Order: 11.07.2025
____________________________________________________________
Shri. Dimchangchirim K. Sangma Vs. Smt. Chano Ch. Sangma.
S/o(L) Kremilston R. Marak, D/o (L) Arun G. Momin,
R/o Balsrigittim, Williamnagar, R/o Dakopgre, New Tura,
P.O & P.S Williamnagar, P.O Dakopgre, P.S Aramile
East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
.......Applicant. .......Respondent.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. A. Sheikh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : None. ORAL:-
Heard Mr. S. A. Sheikh, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
None appears for the respondent despite service of due notice.
By this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned
ex-parte order dated 13-03-2024 passed by the Assistant Judge, District
Council Court, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura in Misc Case
No. 180 of 2023 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an interim
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the child of the respondent.
Page 1 of 3
2025:MLHC:604
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court
has grossly erred in passing the impugned order dated 13-03-2024 without
there being any affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities filed by the
respondent as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha,
(2021) 2 SCC 324 and in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 1451. Relying on the propositions laid down by the Apex Court
in the aforesaid cases, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that the Trial
Court could not have passed the impugned order without any such affidavit
on record. He, therefore submits that the impugned order is not tenable in
law and liable to be set aside.
From the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and perusal of materials on record, it appears that the impugned order dated
13-03-2024 was an ex-parte order against the petitioner. Hence, the
absence of the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities of the
petitioner cannot be the ground to impute any illegality to the impugned
order. However, it transpires that no affidavit of disclosure of assets and
liabilities was filed by the respondent in terms of the judgment of the Apex
Court before the impugned order dated 13-03-2024 was passed by the Trial
Court. The mandate of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Aditi Alias Mithi (supra) makes it clear that no order of maintenance, either
interim or final, can be passed by a Court without there being any affidavit
of disclosure of assets and liabilities on record. There is nothing to show
that the requirement of filing of such an affidavit by the respondent was
dispensed with by the Trial Court before the impugned order was passed.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 13-03-2024 cannot be
sustained in law and the same is here by set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the Trail Court for a fresh consideration after compliance of the
Page 2 of 3
2025:MLHC:604
legal requirement mandated by decision of the Apex Court in in Rajnesh v.
Neha (supra) and in Aditi Alias Mithi (supra). Since, the instant matter
pertains to the question of grant of interim maintenance allowance, the
Trial Court shall make an endeavour to take up the matter without any
unnecessary delay.
With the above, this criminal revision petition stands disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
11.07.2025
“Biswarup PS”
Page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by BISWARUP
BHATTACHARJEE
Date: 2025.07.11 16:16:51 IST