Maintenance litigation is, at its core, a dispute about money that only one side fully knows. The affidavit of disclosure of assets, income and expenditure was designed to correct that imbalance. In Rajnesh v. Neha (Supreme Court of India, 4 November 2020), the Court made such an affidavit mandatory for both parties in maintenance proceedings across the country. In practice, the quality and candour of this single document now shapes the interim order, the final award and the credibility of each party before the court.
Why this one document decides most maintenance cases
Before the affidavit became mandatory, maintenance hearings often proceeded on bare pleadings: the applicant estimated the respondent's income generously, the respondent pleaded penury, and the court split the difference. Rajnesh v. Neha replaced that guesswork with a structured disclosure filed on oath by both parties. The judgment also settled the framework within which the affidavit is read: the criteria for determining quantum include the status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified, the income and assets of both sides, the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, and the non-earning spouse's contribution to the household. Every one of those criteria is answered, well or badly, by the affidavit.
The Court further held that maintenance is ordinarily payable from the date of application. Since arrears run from filing, the affidavit is not a formality to be perfected later — it fixes the financial baseline for the entire proceeding.
What the affidavit must disclose
The disclosure covers income from every source, not merely the salary slip. That means salary and allowances, including perquisites and reimbursements; business or professional receipts; rent from property; agricultural income; and interest, dividends and other investment returns. On the asset side, the deponent must set out immovable property, vehicles, bank accounts, investments such as shares, mutual funds, fixed deposits and insurance policies, and lockers. Liabilities are equally material: outstanding loans, EMIs and other recurring obligations reduce disposable income and must be stated with particulars. The affidavit also requires a statement of monthly expenditure and of dependants actually supported by the deponent — elderly parents, children from an earlier marriage, or others.
A common misconception is that only the respondent's finances matter. Both parties file. An applicant who is earning, or who holds assets, must disclose them; the court weighs the applicant's own income and qualifications against the claim, as the quantum criteria make clear.
How the two affidavits are read against each other
The court does not read either affidavit in isolation. It places them side by side and looks for internal and mutual consistency. The declared income of the paying spouse is tested against the standard of living both parties describe during the marriage: school fees, foreign travel, club memberships, the class of car and the locality of the matrimonial home. The applicant's stated needs are tested against her own disclosure and the household the parties actually ran. Where the two accounts diverge sharply, the annexed documents — tax returns, bank statements, loan records — usually settle which version is credible.
The recurring failure patterns
Certain defects recur so often that courts look for them as a matter of course. The first is declared income that cannot explain the declared lifestyle: a deponent who states a modest monthly income while the record shows premium school fees, EMIs on a large vehicle and regular credit card spending well beyond that figure. The second is the omission of allowances or cash components — the affidavit states basic salary while Form 16 and the bank statement reveal substantial variable pay, or a professional discloses only the receipted portion of a practice. The third is the transfer of assets to family members shortly before or after proceedings begin; a conveniently timed gift of property to a parent or sibling rarely escapes notice once the applicant places the earlier ownership record before the court.
Consequences of false disclosure — and use in cross-examination
The Supreme Court cautioned that false or incomplete disclosure invites adverse inference and other consequences. Concretely, this operates at three levels. First, the court may disbelieve the declared income altogether and assess maintenance on earning capacity — what a person of the deponent's qualifications, business and visible lifestyle can reasonably earn — rather than on the figure sworn. Second, the affidavit is sworn testimony; a deponent confronted in cross-examination with a bank statement or property record contradicting the affidavit has damaged not only that issue but his general credibility for the rest of the trial. Third, deliberate falsehood on oath exposes the deponent to proceedings for perjury and, where an order of disclosure is flouted, to contempt.
For the cross-examining side, the affidavit is a fixed target: every line is an admission or an assertion that can be tested against documents obtained independently — from the employer, the registry of properties, or the bank.
Keeping the affidavit current
Financial circumstances change over a proceeding that may run for years. A change of employment, a business downturn, the sale or acquisition of property, retirement, or a new dependant should be brought on record through a supplementary affidavit with supporting papers. A party seeking modification of maintenance on the ground of changed circumstances will, in any event, have to prove the change; a contemporaneous updated disclosure is far more persuasive than a belated assertion.
Documents to annex
Income tax returns for the last three years
Form 16 or computation of income for the same period
Bank statements of all accounts for at least one year
Credit card statements for the recent period
Title papers of immovable property and vehicle registration documents
Loan sanction letters and statements showing outstanding EMIs
Salary slips, rent agreements and investment statements where applicable
The affidavit protects an honest payer as much as it protects a claimant. A respondent whose disclosure is complete, documented and consistent narrows the dispute to arithmetic; it is the evasive affidavit, not the modest income, that produces harsh orders.
A closing word
The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure has converted maintenance litigation from a contest of assertions into a contest of records. A party who treats it as sworn evidence — accurate, complete, documented and kept current — approaches the court from a position of credibility. A party who treats it as a pleading to be argued around usually discovers that the court has drawn its own conclusions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the affidavit of assets and liabilities compulsory in every maintenance case?
Yes. In Rajnesh v. Neha, decided on 4 November 2020, the Supreme Court made an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities mandatory for both parties in maintenance proceedings across the country. It applies whether the claim is under Section 144 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 125 CrPC), the Hindu Marriage Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act or personal law.
What happens if a party files a false or incomplete affidavit?
The Supreme Court cautioned that false or incomplete disclosure invites adverse inference and other consequences. In practice, a court may disbelieve the declared income, assess maintenance on earning capacity and apparent lifestyle instead, and the deponent may face proceedings for perjury or contempt. The affidavit is sworn testimony, and its contents can be tested in cross-examination.
From which date is maintenance payable?
In Rajnesh v. Neha the Supreme Court held that maintenance is ordinarily payable from the date of the application, not from the date of the order. This makes early and accurate disclosure important for both sides, because arrears accumulate over the life of the proceeding and are computed with reference to the disclosed financial position.
Should the affidavit be updated during the case?
Yes, where circumstances change materially — a new job, loss of employment, sale or purchase of property, retirement or a fresh liability. A party who allows a stale affidavit to remain on record risks the same adverse inference as one who conceals. A short supplementary affidavit with supporting documents keeps the record honest and protects the deponent.