Wife Can Seek To Summon Bank Authorities As Witness To Determine Husband’s Real Income/Assets: Delhi High Court
Observing that it is not uncommon for husbands to suppress their real income in order to avoid paying maintenance to their wives, the Delhi High Court has held that a wife can seek to summon bank officials as witness to the husband’s actual income/ assets.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja thus allowed Petitioner-wife’s plea against a Family Court order dismissing her Section 311 CrPC application to summon witnesses, including bank authorities, to substantiate her claims regarding respondent-husband’s real income.
The bench observed,
“The financial status, including income, assets and means of the respondent are of relevant consideration in determining the quantum of maintenance in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. By seeking to summon the statements of accounts of family members of the respondent, petitioner intends to bring on record the chain of diversion of funds from the sale of Noida property to establish that the said funds…Denying the petitioner an opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of maintenance proceedings.”
Respondent contended that witnesses sought to be summoned were not relevant to Petitioner’s case and that the Section 311 application was a mere delay tactic.
Petitioner on the other hand alleged that Respondent was attempting to disguise his assets and financial capacity to avoid paying legitimate maintenance dues and thus, her application was necessary to establish his true financial status.
The High Court at the outset noted that Petitioner’s Section 311 application was moved at the stage of final arguments, however, it observed, “Section 311 Cr.P.C grants wide discretion to the Court…The objective is to ensure that the truth emerges and justice is served…Such power can be invoked even at the stage of final arguments.”
It then observed that 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.
“…if the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case, the Court must summon or recall the witnesses. Section 311 overrides the procedural technicalities in the interest of justice,” the Court said.
It further observed that the Family court failed to engage with the relevance and necessity of the evidence sought.
“The documents and witnesses sought to be introduced by the petitioner are not collateral or immaterial but rather, they directly 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 Cr.P.C., instead of taking a hyper-technical view,” it said and allowed the wife’s petition.
Appearance: Petitioner in person; Mr. Arush Bhandari and Ms. Shimran Shah, Adv. for Respondent
Case title: NJ v. AJ
Case no.: CRL.M.C. 5004/2024