New Delhi, Aug 4 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has outlined the need to adopt a “sensitive and pragmatic” approach in matrimonial cases involving financial dependency and concealment allegations as it allowed a woman’s plea to summon witnesses to support her claims against the estranged husband.
The July 31 order of Justice Ravinder Dudeja came on a plea for summoning witnesses of a woman locked in a matrimonial battle with her estranged husband.
“Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic approach. It is not uncommon that when there are matrimonial differences between the husband and wife, many times husbands tend to suppress their real income and resort to transferring their assets to avoid payment of legitimate dues to their wives,” the court said.
The woman sought summoning of bank officials, along with relevant documents, to bring on record the chain of diversion of funds by the estranged husband from the sale of his property.
Justice Dudeja set aside a June 7, 2024 order of a family court which dismissed her plea for summoning the witnesses.
The woman claimed of discovering that her estranged husband had transferred assets to his family members, including the mother and brother, in an effort to mislead the court and avoid paying legitimate maintenance dues.
The man, on the contrary, argued the witnesses sought to be summoned were not relevant to the woman’s case and that the Section 311 (power to summon material witness, or examine person present) CrPC application was a mere delay tactic.
The high court, however, said the financial status, including income, assets and means of the husband are of relevant consideration in determining the quantum of maintenance in a petition under Section 125 CrPC.
“By seeking to summon the statements of accounts of family members of the respondent (husband), petitioner (wife) intends to bring on record the chain of diversion of funds from the sale of Noida property to establish that the said funds were used for the purchase of Shakti Nagar property by the respondent. Denying the petitioner an opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of maintenance proceedings,” it said.
Justice Dudeja observed while the petition seeking maintenance was filed in 2013, the applications under Section 311 CrPC was filed at the stage of final arguments.
“However, the power under Section 311 CrPC can be exercised at any stage of enquiry, trial and other proceedings. Such power can be invoked even at the stage of final arguments,” it said.
The family court’s reliance on procedural history to justify its refusal, such as alleged delays and multiple applications, does not outweigh the petitioner’s right to a fair opportunity to substantiate her claim, the order added.
The order noted that the family court failed to engage with the relevance and necessity of the evidence sought for the witnesses sought to be summoned “affect the determination of maintenance which is 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 order said. PTI SKV SKV AMK AMK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.