JUDGMENT : This Original Petition has been filed challenging the interim order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, Kollam, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, Cr.P.C.). 2. The petitioner is the husband of the 1 st respondent and the father of the 2 nd respondent. The marriage and paternity are not in dispute. The respondents filed a petition for maintenance as M. C. No.115/2019 before the Family Court, Kollam against the petitioner. They also filed an application for interim maintenance as Crl.M.P. No.295/2019. The Family Court, after hearing both sides, granted interim monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) each to respondents 1 and 2. The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. R. Kishore and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Adv. Binu George. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable for non- compliance with the specific direction of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [ (2021) 2 SCC 324 ] regarding the requirement of the parties in a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to file an affidavit disclosing their assets and liabilities. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that since the Family Court has ordered the payment of the interim maintenance based on all relevant materials, mere failure to take on record the asset affidavits shall not render its order invalid. 5. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) laid down a procedure to streamline the grant of maintenance in maintenance proceedings. The Court also set out criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance was to be awarded, how to enforce orders of maintenance, and the fixing of payment of interim maintenance. Noticing that in maintenance proceedings the wife tends to exaggerate her needs and the husband tends to conceal his actual income, the Supreme Court made it mandatory to file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities by the parties in all such proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court/ District Court/ Magistrate’s Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country. A uniform format for the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in such proceedings was prescribed. A uniform format for the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in such proceedings was prescribed. The format of the said affidavit was annexed as Enclosures I, II and III with the judgment. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, the Supreme Court framed guidelines in the exercise of the powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The guidelines framed by the Supreme Court are as follows: "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 mainte- nance 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 opportuni- ties 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 exer- cising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in de- laying the proceedings (Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain, 2020 (17) SCC 822 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1915). 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 AfÏ- davits 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 AfÏ- davits 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 declara- tion 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 oppo- site party under O.11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the provisions of O.10 CPC or S.165 of the Evi- dence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The in- come of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court may invoke S.106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabili- ties 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 infor- mation 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 mainte- nance and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the court may consider initiation of proceeding under S.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." 6. 72.11. (k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family Court." 6. A slew of directions in the form of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and extracted above are mandatory in nature and must be followed in all maintenance cases by all Courts dealing with maintenance throughout the country. The judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was delivered on 04/11/2020 and the guidelines therein have been circulated to all the Courts in India for compliance. After the judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was rendered, the Supreme Court in the judgment in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451] which was delivered on 06/11/2023 noticed that guidelines in Rajnesh (supra) have not been followed by many courts in the country while fixing the maintenance, either interim or final. The Supreme Court expressed its deep concern in not adhering to the mandatory guidelines given in Rajnesh (supra) so far as the requirement of filing the Affidavit of Disclosure is concerned. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has issued directions to recirculate a copy of the judgment containing guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance to judicial officers in all High Courts across the country. However, it is quite unfortunate to notice that, despite the specific directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and Aditi Alias Mithi (supra), various Courts in the State, like in the present one, are passing orders, either interim or final, fixing maintenance, without there being any Affidavit of Disclosure on record filed by the parties. This Court can take judicial notice of the said fact from the number of Original Petitions [(OP(Crl.)] and Revision Petitions [(RP(FC)] filed before this Court challenging the interim as well as final order of maintenance passed without bringing on record the Affidavit of Disclosure of the parties in terms of the directions in Rajnesh (supra). 7. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra). However, the Family Court disposed of the interim maintenance application as per the impugned order considering the pleadings. The petitioner herein, while considering the application for interim maintenance, pointed before the Family Court that the 1 st respondent did not the affidavit showing her assets and liabilities. However, the Family Court disposed of the interim maintenance application as per the impugned order considering the pleadings. The petitioner herein, while considering the application for interim maintenance, pointed before the Family Court that the 1 st respondent did not the affidavit showing her assets and liabilities. However, the Family Court took the view that since the petitioner himself did not file the affidavit, he could not take up such a contention. Guideline No.72.1(a) in Rajnesh (supra) specifically says that the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings, throughout the country, shall file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court as a mandatory requirement. Guideline No.72.2(b) in Rajnesh (supra) makes it mandatory for the applicant making a claim for maintenance to file a concise application accompanied by the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets. It was further observed that based on the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. It is true that guideline No.72.3 says that the respondent also must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks, and the court may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. But the mere fact that the petitioner herein did not file an Affidavit of Disclosure as directed in Rajnesh (supra) would not absolve the 1 st respondent from an affidavit. Since the impugned order is passed without the affidavits of both parties, it cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The matter is required to be remitted back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law by complying with the directions in Rajnesh (supra). The counsel for the 1 st respondent submitted that the 1 st respondent has now filed an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the Family Court. In the light of the above findings, this Original Petition is disposed of as follows: i. The impugned order granting interim maintenance is set aside. ii. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 20.03.2025. iii. Crl. M.P. No.295/2019 is remitted to the Family Court for fresh disposal. iv. In the light of the above findings, this Original Petition is disposed of as follows: i. The impugned order granting interim maintenance is set aside. ii. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 20.03.2025. iii. Crl. M.P. No.295/2019 is remitted to the Family Court for fresh disposal. iv. The petitioner shall file an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities in terms of the directions in Rajnesh (supra) within a period of ten days from the appearance of the parties before the Family Court. v. The Family Court is directed to reconsider the application for interim maintenance and pass an order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. vi. If the petitioner fails to file the affidavit as directed above, the Family Court is free to pass order based on the pleadings of the parties and considering the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. vii. In case the Family Court passes an order of interim maintenance, it shall grant maintenance with effect from the date of the petition. viii. All the Courts in the State dealing with maintenance cases are directed to strictly follow the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) that before passing a order of maintenance or interim order of maintenance, the parties should be directed to file Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities and the order should be passed based on the pleadings, evidence as well as the disclosure made in the affidavits. ix. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to all the Courts in the State dealing with maintenance cases.