Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 251 (MP)

Smt. Anubha Modi (Jain) v. Apurv Modi (Jain)

2020-02-14

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 27.6.2018 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in RCSHMA No.4/2017 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondent has filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce. An application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 of CPC as well as an application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC were filed for a direction to the respondent to produce the documents mentioned in the respective applications. The Court below has rejected the applications on the ground that they are not relevant for the disposal of the divorce petition because apart from the issue pertaining to relief and expenses, only two other issues have been framed which are with relation to the alleged cruelty committed by the petitioner. 3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that so far as the documents regarding the income of the respondent are concerned, they are necessary for the adjudication of the application filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and in case if the occasion arises, then they would be necessary for deciding the application filed under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the documents mentioned in the applications are wholly irrelevant. Further, the petitioner wants to prove that the respondent had misrepresented prior to marriage and in fact he had played fraud on the petitioner. 4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the applications filed by the petitioner are misconceived. The petitioner has not filed any suit for divorce and, therefore, she has to confine herself to the allegations made by the respondent against her. It is further submitted that petitioner has also sought the production of the certified copy of judgment passed in S.T. No.151/2010 which is unwarranted as the same is in relation to the sister of the respondent and the only intention of the petitioner by seeking production of the certified copy of the said judgment is to malign and defame the sister of the respondent. 5. 5. In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that she may be permitted to withdraw her prayer in respect of the copy of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 151/2010 but the remaining documents are necessary. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the documents pertaining to the income of the respondent are concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court the said documents cannot be held to be completely irrelevant for the adjudication of the Us. The petitioner has a right to file an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance and it is well established principle of law that the wife is entitled to enjoy the same standard of living which she would have otherwise enjoyed in her matrimonial house, therefore, for effective adjudication of the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the documents pertaining to the income of the respondent are relevant. Furthermore, the children of the parties are also entitled to enjoy the same status which they would have enjoyed in the house of their father. Therefore, for passing an interim order with regard to the maintenance and education of the minor child, the documents pertaining to the income of the father are relevant. This Court can also not lose sight of the fact that if a decree of divorce is passed, then the wife would be entitled for permanent alimony, in case if she files an application under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act. Thus the documents pertaining to the income of the husband cannot be said to be completely irrelevant for adjudicating the Us between the parties. 8. The petitioner also wants the production of the documents to show that prior to the settlement of marriage, certain misrepresentations were made by the respondent. 9. In order to find out as to whether the conduct of the wife amounts to cruelty or not, the Court may also look into the conduct of the husband so as to find out as to whether the conduct of the wife was by way of reaction or not. Every behavior of a spouse may not amount to cruelty but it may be by way of reaction to the conduct of his/her spouse. 10. Every behavior of a spouse may not amount to cruelty but it may be by way of reaction to the conduct of his/her spouse. 10. Under these circumstances, it is held that the Trial Court committed a material illegality by rejecting the applications filed under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 of CPC as well as an application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC. Both the applications are allowed except the certified copy of S.T. No. 151/2010 decided by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior. As a consequence thereof, the order dated 27.6.2018 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in RCSHMA No.4/2017 is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to produce the documents along with his affidavit within a period of one month from today, failing which the Court below shall be free to draw an adverse inference against the respondent. 11. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.