In an important milestone in matrimonial litigation, the Delhi High Court in NJ v. AJ decided on a problem arising under the wife’s right to call witnesses in the context of proceedings for maintenance. The case originated in a petition presented by the wife (Petitioner) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), challenging an order of the Family Court rejecting her application under Section 311 CrPC. The application had requested permission to call bank officials and obtain documents that would determine the real income and concealed assets of her husband (Respondent).
The Petitioner submitted that the Respondent was keeping his actual financial standing hidden so that he would not pay reasonable maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. She complained that the Respondent had disposed of a property in Noida and remitted the sale proceeds into accounts of his family members, thus hiding his income and trying to deceive the Family Court. She attempted to call witnesses, such as bank representatives, and retrieve related financial documents, which she claimed were key to the question of establishing the Respondent’s financial capability.
The Respondent opposed the application and asserted that the application was a tactic to delay, made at the last stage of arguments, only to delay proceedings. Further, asserted that the records of third parties, particularly family members of the Respondent, had no direct bearing on the issue of maintenance and that granting such a request would be an unjustified.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, however, had a very different perspective. In a well-reasoned and in-depth judgment, the Court felt substantial merit in the wife’s arguments and noted that the Family Court had adopted a hyper-technical approach to the case. Justice Dudeja laid stress on the object and ambit of Section 311 CrPC, which authorizes courts to issue or recall witnesses at any stage of the case. The Court made it clear that although timing might be a factor, the law itself imposes no strict prohibition on when such motions are to be filed.
The High Court condemned the Family Court for denying the application simply on the basis that it was made in the last stage of arguments. Importantly, the ruling acknowledged the fact that in most maintenance cases, husbands try to hide income or shift assets so that they do not have to pay maintenance. In such situations, granting the wife access to finance documents through a proper court procedure, like calling for the testimony of witnesses, becomes essential to the cause of justice.
The Court emphasized the doctrine that not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done. In setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court reiterated that the evidentiary material the Petitioner provided was not irrelevant. The High Court granted the petition and ordered the Family Court to allow the Petitioner to call the bank officials and produce supporting documents.
This decision is a milestone in maintenance cases by reaffirming the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding economically dependent spouses’ rights. The decision nudges Family Courts to be liberal in their approach to exercising procedural powers while handling cases of maintenance, so that truth emerges and justice prevails. The lower court must keep track of the recent tactics of the parties to deceive courts and the opposite party, and act accordingly.
The case is now back in the Family Court, where the Petitioner shall be permitted to produce more evidence. The decision in the proceedings will depend on a complete and transparent financial scenario, exactly the type of equitable determination Section 125 CrPC contemplates and the Constitution promises.
