Delhi High Court: In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 7-6-2024 passed by Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, whereby applications preferred by the petitioner-wife for summoning of witnesses including bank authorities, to establish the respondent-husband’s actual financial position, were dismissed. A Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., observed that the financial status, including income, assets and means of the husband were of relevant consideration in determining the quantum of maintenance in a petition under Section 125 CrPC. Thus, denying the wife an opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of maintenance proceedings. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Family Court to permit the wife to summon the witnesses concerned with the relevant record.
Background
The parties got married on 16-2-2012 and since its inception, the wife was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and his family, primarily to fulfill unlawful dowry demands. On 18-11-2012, the husband and his family allegedly locked the matrimonial home, abandoned the wife without resources, after transferring the wife’s stridhan, including jewellery and cash, into their accounts. Thereafter, the husband initiated several false and frivolous litigations against his wife and her family members; however, all such proceedings were either dismissed or withdrawn.
The wife submitted that the husband concealed his income and financial status, including his appointment as Chief Financial Officer (‘CFO’), and thus, she filed several applications under Section 311 CrPC seeking to summon relevant witnesses, to establish her husband’s actual financial position. The wife’s application was initially allowed but the Family Court by order dated 7-6-2024, dismissed her application to summon witnesses. Despite her repeated requests to address these material issues before proceeding further, the Family Court fixed the matter for final arguments on 29-7-2024.
Case Analysis and Decision:
The Court after taking note of the wife’s contention that the husband deliberately sold his property in Noida and diverted the sale proceeds to the accounts of his family members, and later purchased a property in Shakti Nagar in the name of one of the husband’s family members, opined that in matrimonial disputes, it was not uncommon for the husbands to suppress their actual income and transfer their assets to avoid paying legitimate dues to their wives.
The financial status, including income, assets and means of the husband were of relevant consideration in determining the quantum of maintenance in a petition under Section 125 CrPC. Thus, denying the wife an opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of maintenance proceedings and undermine the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Supreme Court issued directions to conduct a realistic assessment of financial status, including instances of concealment.
Further, the Court observed that the Family Court’s reliance on procedural history to justify its refusal, did not outweigh the wife’s right to a fair opportunity to substantiate her claim, especially when prior orders had already allowed her to lead the evidence. The dismissal order failed to engage with the relevance and necessity of the evidence sought and instead treated the wife’s applications as mere delaying tactics without properly appreciating their substance.
The Court further observed that while the petition was filed way back in the year 2013 and had not been disposed of till date and applications under Section 311 CrPC weren preferred at the stage of final arguments, the power under Section 311 CrPC could be exercised even at the stage of final arguments. Further, matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment were alleged, demanded a sensitive and pragmatic approach. The documents and witnesses sought to be introduced by the wife were not collateral or immaterial but rather, directly affected the determination of maintenance which was a matter of subsistence. The Family Court ought to have adopted a more purposive interpretation of its enabling powers under Section 311 CrPC, instead of taking a hyper-technical view.
The Court thus allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order dated 7-6-2024, and directed the Family Court to permit the wife to summon the witnesses concerned with the relevant record.
[X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5126, decided on 31-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Arush Bhandari and Shimran Shah, Advocates.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
