The Delhi High Court has set aside a Family Court order that had rejected a woman’s request to summon bank officials and produce financial documents in a long-pending maintenance case. The High Court ruled that she is entitled to lead evidence to establish her estranged husband’s concealed income and real financial status.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, deciding a petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the Family Court erred in dismissing the woman’s application under Section 311 CrPC at the stage of final arguments. The High Court emphasized that the evidence she sought to bring on record was directly relevant to the determination of maintenance and could not be disregarded merely on procedural grounds.
Background and Proceedings
The parties were married in 2012. The woman alleged that shortly after the marriage, she was subjected to domestic violence and ultimately deserted. She claimed that her husband, despite holding a senior financial position, deliberately misrepresented his income, transferred property sale proceeds to family members, and attempted to avoid maintenance obligations.
To establish these allegations, the woman moved applications under Section 311 CrPC to summon officials from several banks, as well as municipal and financial authorities, to produce records showing fund transfers and property purchases involving the husband and his relatives.
Although the Family Court initially allowed her to lead evidence, it later dismissed her application dated 13 March 2024, which sought to summon witnesses to prove, among other things, the diversion of ₹5.25 lakhs from the sale of a Noida property into her husband’s mother’s account. The case was thereafter fixed for final arguments.
High Court’s Findings
Justice Dudeja observed that Section 311 CrPC gives courts wide discretionary and mandatory powers to summon, recall, or re-examine witnesses at any stage of proceedings. Citing Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and Natasha v. CBI, the Court reiterated that this provision exists to ensure a just outcome and prevent miscarriage of justice.
“Section 311 overrides the procedural technicalities in the interest of justice,” the Court noted.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, which directed courts to conduct a realistic assessment of a spouse’s financial status, especially when concealment is alleged.
It held that denying the woman an opportunity to prove the diversion of sale proceeds and link it to the acquisition of a Shakti Nagar property would undermine the very object of maintenance proceedings.
“Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic approach. The documents and witnesses sought to be introduced are not collateral or immaterial but directly affect the determination of maintenance, which is a matter of subsistence,” the Court observed.
The High Court rejected the Family Court’s view that her applications were mere delay tactics, noting that Section 311 can be invoked even at the stage of final arguments. The Court stressed that procedural history could not override the right to a fair opportunity.
Direction
Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order dated 7 June 2024 and directed it to permit the woman to summon the concerned witnesses with the relevant records. It further instructed the trial court to complete the remaining proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months, with full cooperation from both parties.
