JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been preferred against order dated 15.12.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance Case No. 198 of 2018, whereby petition for maintenance under section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by the wife (opposite party herein) has been allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) per month to his wife. 3. The findings of the learned Family Court, interalia, recorded at paragraph Nos. 10 to 12 are quoted as under: - “10. From the assertions and allegations made by the parties it has transpired that marital status is an admitted aspect of this case, therefore, at this juncture I am required to examine whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for living separately from her husband and getting allowance for her monthly maintenance from him. I have further to determine whether the petitioner has been able to maintain herself and if both the questions are replied in affirmative for should be the reasonably quantum of maintenance. 11. In the instant case marriage between the parties is admitted. It is also admitted aspect of this case that the petitioner has been living separately in her parent's house and the respondent has sufficient monthly income to maintain his wife nevertheless he is not making payment to her and the respondent himself is not willing to keep the petitioner with him and he has intentionally ousted the petitioner from his house, so, the petitioner is totally justified in living separately from him. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find and hold that the respondent having sufficient means has neglected and refused to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. 12. So far as the contention of the respondent that the petitioner and her parents have sufficient income for her maintenance is concerned, in a catena of cases the Superior Courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. In Shailja & Anr. V Khobbanna, the Apex Court has held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family court. In Shailja & Anr. V Khobbanna, the Apex Court has held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. In the case of Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. V Anil Kachwaha through the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher the Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale V Kalvani Sanjay Kale while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, however meagre, i sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.” Arguments of the petitioner (husband) 4. The first point raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction in view of the fact that the conditions as mentioned in Section 125(4) of the Cr. P.C. is not at all satisfied. He submits that the opposite party no. 2 had left the matrimonial home on her own free will and thereafter she did not return back. She had no reason to refuse to live with the petitioner. The learned counsel has relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 and has referred to paragraph No. 29 of her cross examination wherein she has stated that she lived with the petitioner for 15 days and had gone to the hostel for her studies and from the hostel only she used to visit the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that a divorce suit is also pending which has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2017. The learned counsel has referred to the evidence of the petitioner before the learned court below and has submitted that the opposite party had left the matrimonial home in May 2012 and since then she has been living in the hostel. The learned counsel has referred to the evidence of the petitioner before the learned court below and has submitted that the opposite party had left the matrimonial home in May 2012 and since then she has been living in the hostel. He has also submitted that the learned court below has not considered the evidences properly and therefore the impugned order calls for interference. 5. The second point raised by the petitioner is that the opposite party is also a doctor and she is not only capable of maintaining herself but is having sufficient means to maintain herself. It is submitted that the order has been passed by completely ignoring the directions/guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. Reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 . In view of the aforesaid judgment, both the parties were required to submit their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities even in pending cases particularly in view of the facts that both parties of the present case are medical practitioners and the wife (O.P. herein) is concealing her income. On this count, the quantum of maintenance also calls for interference. 6. He submits that if the petitioner succeeds on the first point, the question of quantifying the maintenance does not arise and the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Arguments of the opposite party (wife) 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party while opposing the prayer has submitted that the opposite party has deposed before the learned court below that soon after marriage, the petitioner had tortured the opposite party both mentally and physically in relation to jewelry and within 15 days he left her in the hostel and thereafter he did not come back and changed his place of residence and in spite of best of her efforts, she could not find the whereabouts of the petitioner. She has submitted that a case of domestic violence is also pending. 8. So far as the evidence of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner had admitted during evidence that before the National Women’s Commission the parties had entered into a compromise in 2015 and in the light of said compromise, the petitioner never came to meet the opposite party. She has submitted that a case of domestic violence is also pending. 8. So far as the evidence of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner had admitted during evidence that before the National Women’s Commission the parties had entered into a compromise in 2015 and in the light of said compromise, the petitioner never came to meet the opposite party. She submits that the learned court below has also taken into consideration that in answer to a question the petitioner has disclosed that even if the opposite party agrees to live with him, he shall not allow her to live in his house. The learned counsel submits that the learned court below has considered the materials on record and passed a well-reasoned order and therefore the provision of Section 125(4) is not attracted in the present case. 9. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, she also does not dispute that the required affidavit in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Rajnesh versus Neha & Another (supra) was not filed before the learned court below and she submits that if this Court is not inclined to accept the first point raised by the petitioner and decide the same in favour of the opposite party, then matter has to be remitted back for the purposes of quantification of maintenance. Findings of this Court 10. It is not in dispute that the opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘wife’) belongs to Dhanbad where her parents are residing and the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘husband’) originally belongs to Bhojpur, Uttar Pradesh and was a medical practitioner at Noida. The marriage between them was solemnized on 29.11.2011 in accordance with Hindu Customs. It is also not in dispute that the wife is a qualified dentist. 11. The wife filed a petition on 21.04.2018 numbered as Original Maintenance Case No. 198 of 2018 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the husband stating that the husband acted with cruelty upon the wife and owing to physical and mental cruelty the wife was thrown out of matrimonial house on 14.12.2011. It was stated in the petition that during Dussehra in the year 2017, she called upon the husband to provide money to maintain herself but no amount was paid. The wife claimed that the husband had a monthly income of Rs. It was stated in the petition that during Dussehra in the year 2017, she called upon the husband to provide money to maintain herself but no amount was paid. The wife claimed that the husband had a monthly income of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month from his medical practice and additional income of Rs. 2,24,000/- per month from cultivation and Rs. 80,000/- per month as house rent from the building at Noida. The wife stated her occupation as house wife and claimed the maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the husband. 12. A show cause was filed by the husband on 19.06.2019 objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court at Dhanbad by stating that neither the marriage was solemnized at Dhanbad nor the parties had lived together at Dhanbad and that at the time of presentation of the case, the wife was residing at Delhi. However, the fact that the marriage was solemnized on 29.11.2011 between the parties was not in dispute. It was the case of the husband that on 16.12.2011, the wife abused the parents of the husband and started putting pressure to live separate life, but when the husband protested, the wife left the matrimonial house and started living in PG from the month of April 2012. The wife started filing false and manufactured cases against the husband in order to pressurize him and ultimately the husband was compel to file a suit for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Budhnagar, U.P. which was registered as O.S. Case No. 768 of 2017 dated 08.11.2017 and on receipt of the notice in the aforesaid case, the wife moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court for transfer of the aforesaid case at Dhanbad but the prayer of the wife was declined and in order to harass and humiliate the husband, the wife also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act vide Complaint Case No. 9137 of 2017 which was pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saket at Delhi. It was stated by the husband that the wife is a qualified doctor and she was working at Delhi and was getting a salary of Rs. It was stated by the husband that the wife is a qualified doctor and she was working at Delhi and was getting a salary of Rs. 1,10,000/- per month and with regard to the husband it was stated that he had joined his service in the year 2014 and was working at Sanghai, China was currently drawing a salary of Rs. 1,70,000/- per month out of which his own cost of living was Rs. 65,000/- per month. He had elderly mother and father who were living at Noida and were being maintained by the husband. It was asserted that the old aged ailing parents of the husband were dependent upon him and accordingly it was prayed that the case filed by the wife be dismissed. 13. The records of the learned court below reveal that the matter was sent for mediation vide order dated 19.06.2019 when it was stated by the parties that there was a chance of settlement and both the parties had appeared in person but ultimately the case was proceeded before the learned Family Court. Before this Court also, the matter was sent for mediation before Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and ultimately the mediation has failed. 14. Initially when the proceeding was ex-parte, the father of the wife was examined as P.W. 1 and the wife was examined as P.W. 2. However, when the ex-parte order was recalled, the wife was examined as P.W. 1 and the father of the wife was examined as P.W. 2 and both the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the husband. The husband was examined as R.W. 1 who was the sole witness from his side. The husband was also duly cross-examined by the wife. 15. The wife in her evidence on affidavit has stated that after her marriage with the husband on 29.11.2011, she went to Noida and the husband on account of some dispute relating to jewelry started physical and mental torture. The husband had left her in the college hostel after 15 days of marriage and thereafter he did not come. He also changed his address due to which the wife was not able to find out his whereabouts. Thereafter, she received notice of divorce in the month of November 2017; applied for transfer of case which was rejected; in the mediation the husband had refused to keep her and therefore she had filed a case for maintenance. He also changed his address due to which the wife was not able to find out his whereabouts. Thereafter, she received notice of divorce in the month of November 2017; applied for transfer of case which was rejected; in the mediation the husband had refused to keep her and therefore she had filed a case for maintenance. It was stated in her evidence that the husband was having medical practice in Metro Hospital at Noida and had a monthly income of Rs. 2.5 to 3 lakhs and had additional income of Rs. 2 to 2.5 lakhs from agriculture and Rs. 80,000/- from the rent of the house at Delhi. She supported her claim of maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- by stating that she is unemployed and unable to maintain herself. She further stated that the husband had taken her out from his house on 14.12.2011 and dropped her in college hostel and since then she has been living in her parental house and thereafter the husband did not ever come to her in order to give any maintenance to her. She was being maintained by her father who has income from pension. The wife has been thoroughly cross-examined. She admitted in her cross-examination that she has filed a case under Domestic Violence Act and that she is a registered dental practitioner. She came to know about the medical practice of her husband in the year 2014. She had not seen the pay-slip of her husband, but her husband had himself told her that he had monthly income of Rs. 3,00,000/-. She has stated that she is not aware of exact amount of her monthly expenses but around Rs. 45,000/- is spent. She denied that she was working as medical practitioner in Delhi and that she was getting Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. She admitted that the husband was the only son of his parents and his parents were around 67 to 68 years of age. She has denied that she never wanted to stay with her husband after marriage and that she voluntarily started living separately from her husband and on account of which the husband had filed a divorce petition. She admitted that the husband was the only son of his parents and his parents were around 67 to 68 years of age. She has denied that she never wanted to stay with her husband after marriage and that she voluntarily started living separately from her husband and on account of which the husband had filed a divorce petition. In paragraph 29 of her cross-examined, she had stated that it is correct to say that she stayed with her husband in his house for 15 days and thereafter for her studies she came to hostel and that from there she used to visit her husband. So far as the father of the wife is concerned, he has supported her case in his evidence and he has also been thoroughly cross-examined. He has denied in his cross-examined that his daughter was living in Delhi and was running a clinic and was having an income of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. 16. So far as the husband is concerned, he has admitted the factum of marriage in his evidence and also stated that after marriage on 15.12.2011, he came to Noida with his wife. He has stated that he lived in the apartment at Noida with his wife for only one day and thereafter the wife went to the hostel for the purpose of her studies. He has stated that after the wife had left for hostel, he used to meet the wife and she used to come to his house. However, the wife left the house in the month of May 2012 and had stated that the relationship of husband and wife was never established. He has stated that after May 2012, he used to meet the wife outside and he used to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as monthly expenses. He has stated that his wife always insisted him to live separately from his parents and he made all efforts so that the wife could live with the family members. He has stated that the wife never told him as to where she was staying after May 2012 but she used to come to take the money and at that point of time the husband used to work at Metro Hospital, Sector 11, Noida. He has stated that the wife never told him as to where she was staying after May 2012 but she used to come to take the money and at that point of time the husband used to work at Metro Hospital, Sector 11, Noida. He has stated that the wife filed a case in the year 2014 before the National Women’s Commission and in the month of September 2014, there was a compromise between the parties and as per the compromise, the husband was to pay Rs. 18,000/- to the wife as per the terms of settlement. He stated that he paid the said amount for six months through online transfer but during this period the wife never came to him although he made repeated request and there was such effort from the family of both the sides. He has stated that in the year 2014, his father was working in Tanda, Uttar Pradesh and he had given in writing that the wife was welcome in her matrimonial house, but in spite of that the wife neither came nor gave any reason for not coming. He has stated that after the year 2014-15, again in the year 2016, the husband made effort to bring his wife. At this, the Court had put a question to the husband to which he responded that if the wife is willing to go with him and stay with him, then also he will not keep her. Thereafter, the husband has been thoroughly cross-examined. He has stated in his cross-examination that after leaving his house in the month of May 2012, the wife was living in the hostel. He has further stated that in between period from 2012-2019 in the month of September 2015, he had paid Rs. 18,000/- per month from the year 2015 to February 2016 and that made payment of Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance by virtue of the order of the learned Court below in this case. He stated that has been working in Sanghai and his monthly income was Rs. 1,70,000/- per month but no evidence to that effect has been produced by him. He has stated that he has a four storied house in Noida and that he has his ancestral house and landed property in the district of Bhojpur but denied that he was having an income of Rs. 1,70,000/- per month but no evidence to that effect has been produced by him. He has stated that he has a four storied house in Noida and that he has his ancestral house and landed property in the district of Bhojpur but denied that he was having an income of Rs. 2,24,000/- per month from agriculture and also denied that he was having Rs. 80,000/- per month as house rent. He has also stated that he had also not filed any details with regard to income of his wife in the Court. 17. The records of the case reveal that neither any documentary evidence was filed before the learned Family Court nor any affidavit was filed in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Another (supra). This Court finds that the husband claimed that the wife was working as dental practitioner which was denied by the wife and the wife claimed that the husband was working as medical practitioner in Sanghai, China which was admitted by the husband, but the quantum of his income was disputed. The wife claimed that the husband had agricultural income as well as the income from house rent which was denied by the husband in his cross-examined. The records of the case also indicate that a petition was filed by the husband on 13.01.2020 seeking direction to competent authority of Income Tax Department at Delhi for furnishing income tax return, TDS certificate of the wife giving her PAN Number for the financial years 2016-17 to 2018-19. However, such a petition was not pressed and the parties remained absent on a number of dates. The argument on behalf of the wife was concluded on 03.12.2021 and the matter was posted for the argument of the husband on 04.12.2021 on which date the presence of both the parties has been recorded but at the time of arguments no one turned up on behalf of the husband to argue the case on repeated calls and the case was fixed for orders on 15.12.2021 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the materials on record. 18. This Court finds that there has been matrimonial discord between the parties and the parties have been living separately. 18. This Court finds that there has been matrimonial discord between the parties and the parties have been living separately. The aforesaid evidence reveal that there was no willingness on the part of the husband to take the wife back to her matrimonial house and the husband had also refused to take her back in response to a court question. Both the parties are in litigating term and the husband has filed a petition seeking divorce and the wife has also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act which is pending. It further appears from the cross-examination of the husband that there was a compromise between the parties in National Women’s Commission wherein the husband had agreed to pay Rs. 18,000/- as maintenance and the husband claimed that he paid the same to his wife through online transfer from the year 2015 to February 2016 and during this period also they did not live together but at the same time the admittedly since 2014, the husband has been living in Sanghai, China as a medical practitioner. 19. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court has rightly recorded a finding that the wife had a reasonable excuse for living separately from her husband. The impugned order in this respect and to the aforesaid extent is presentable and suffers from no illegality or perversity calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the first point of the argument raised by the petitioner-husband that the conditions as mentioned in Section 125(4) of the Cr. P.C. is not at all satisfied and that the wife had no reason to refuse to live with the petitioner is rejected and decided against the husband and in favour of the wife. 21. This Court also finds that the learned Family Court has rightly recorded that the husband having sufficient means had neglected and refused to maintain his wife. The learned court below has also rightly observed that even if the wife and her parents had sufficient income for her maintenance that cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. 22. The learned court below has also rightly observed that even if the wife and her parents had sufficient income for her maintenance that cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. 22. Some of the important observations and directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 which are relevant for the present case are as under :- “72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India: 72.1. (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country; 72.2. (b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets; 72.3. (c) The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings. On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record; 72.4. (d) The above format may be modified by the court concerned, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the court concerned to issue necessary directions in this regard. 72.5. (e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is required, the court concerned may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof. 72.6. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the court concerned to issue necessary directions in this regard. 72.5. (e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is required, the court concerned may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof. 72.6. (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned. 72.7. (g) If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to light, the party may submit an amended/supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the court at the time of final determination. 72.8. (h) The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the court may consider initiation of proceeding under Section 340 CrPC, and for contempt of court. 72.9. (i) In case the parties belong to the economically weaker sections (“EWS”), or are living below the poverty line (“BPL”), or are casual labourers, the requirement of filing the affidavit would be dispensed with. 72.10. (j) The Family Court/District Court/Magistrate’s Court concerned must make an endeavour to decide the IA for interim maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court. 72.11. (k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family Court. …………………………………………………………… (c) Where wife is earning some income 90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. 72.11. (k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family Court. …………………………………………………………… (c) Where wife is earning some income 90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments: 90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna, this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. 90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. 90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha, held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance. 90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court. 90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan cited the judgment in Chander Parkash with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. ………………………………………………….. VI. Final Directions 127. 90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan cited the judgment in Chander Parkash with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. ………………………………………………….. VI. Final Directions 127. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B — I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. (a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction 128. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that: 128.1. (i) Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding(s), while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding. 128.2. (ii) It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding. 128.3. (iii) If the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding. (b) Payment of Interim Maintenance 129. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country. (c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance 130. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B — III of the judgment. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the court concerned may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor(s) which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case. (d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded 131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B — IV above. (d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded 131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B — IV above. (e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of maintenance 132. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21. 133. Before we part with this judgment, we note our appreciation of the valuable assistance provided by the learned Amici Curiae Ms Anitha Shenoy and Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocates in this case. 134. A copy of this judgment be communicated by the Secretary General of this Court, to the Registrars of all High Courts, who would in turn circulate it to all the District Courts in the States. It shall be displayed on the website of all District Courts/Family Courts/Courts of Judicial Magistrates for awareness and implementation.” 23. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, in view of the plea taken by both the parties, it was incumbent upon the Court to ask both the parties to file their disclosures in terms of the enclosure to the judgment passed in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another (supra). The learned Family Court has not taken care to ask the parties to furnish the required affidavits in terms of the enclosure to the judgment so that the actual financial position of both husband and wife could have come to light by virtue of their disclosure. The same having not been done, the quantification of maintenance cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is set-aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court for passing a fresh order on the quantum of maintenance. 24. The same having not been done, the quantification of maintenance cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is set-aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court for passing a fresh order on the quantum of maintenance. 24. It is also observed that since the monthly income of the parties could vary from time to time, therefore, the parties to file their disclosures for each of the financial year right from the date when the case was filed before the learned court below. Considering the facts of this case, the affidavit of the husband should also disclose as to whether his parents have any independent source of income such as pension. 25. The point no.2 as raised by the petitioner-husband is accordingly decided. 26. The parties to appear before the learned Family Court on 19th March 2024 with the required affidavit in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another (supra) and observation made above. The learned Family Court is directed to pass fresh order as expeditiously as possible but not later than 6 months from 19th of March 2024 taking into consideration the materials already on record and also the materials to be brought on record as per aforesaid directions. 27. The records of the case indicate that the wife had also filed a petition seeking interim maintenance vide petition dated 06.07.2016 and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.07.2019 to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- and the wife also received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the husband on 26.08.2019 when both the parties were present in the Court. It further appears that the arrear in the matter of payment of interim maintenance mounted up and a petition was filed by the wife for enforcement of the order of interim maintenance under Section 128 of Cr.P.C. and as per order dated 25.04.2023, an order passed by this Court in the present case i.e. Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2022 on 19.04.2023 was produced before the learned court below directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- through bank draft or through online transfer and interim relief was granted by this Court to the husband. The aforesaid amount was remitted to the wife which has been recorded in order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court. 28. 3,00,000/- through bank draft or through online transfer and interim relief was granted by this Court to the husband. The aforesaid amount was remitted to the wife which has been recorded in order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court. 28. The interim maintenance was fixed by the learned Family Court and a part of the same has been paid by virtue of the order passed by this Court while granting interim relief. The petitioner shall pay the arrears of interim maintenance and continue to pay interim maintenance till the disposal of the case by the learned Family Court subject to the final outcome of the case. The final order be communicated to the parties through e-mail at the e-mail id to be provided by them. 29. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. 30. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 31. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX/e-mail’.