MRS. SAVITHA CHOWTA v. MR. RAJESH CHOWTA S

- 3 -

stating about his income, has not provided the details of property, its income. He has also not given the details of savings bank account, not fully disclosed the assets owned by him. Till 2017-2018, the petitioner/husband mostly used to deal in account at Vijaya Bank. The said Bank account also contain the amount received by the petitioner/husband from the respondent/wife and her parents. It is also stated that the MITE Institution is the subsidiary of RET and established by the

petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife. The accounts pertaining to the said MITE also shows various transactions pertaining to the Trust and MITE. The respondent/wife had requested Canara Bank for the accounts but the Bank had refused stating that the respondent/wife required to give a letter from her husband. As such, she has come up with this application.

4. To the said application, the husband has filed the objections stating that the income of the RE Trust or the College MITE cannot be added to the income of the

- 4 -

husband as the Trust and the College are separate entities whose income is audited and passed annually in a meeting personally attended by the applicant and the Governing Council of the College. Wife has filed a suit against the husband in R.A.No.123 of 2020 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. It is also stated that the production of documents No.1 to 4 like the Bank statement of accounts of Trust and the College sought for as per the I.A. do not make any change of income of the husband to decide about the maintenance or alimony claimed by the wife. According to the husband, the wife has huge rental income by letting out commercial premises at Balmatta, Mangaluru and the same has not stated in her affidavit and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the said application.

5. The Court below by the order impugned dated 03.08.2023 has dismissed the application. While dismissing the application, the Court has observed that the Matrimonial Case is of the year 2018, which is filed about

- 5 -

five years ago and during the pending of the petition, the respondent has filed I.A.No.4 under Section 24 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and an order is passed on 25.10.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred a petition in Writ Petition No.51564 of 2019 before this Court, which was disposed on 15.03.2022 with a direction to hear I.A.No.4 and pass appropriate order on merits. After disposal of I.A.No.4, the respondent again filed petition in Writ Petition No.21429 of 2022, which was also disposed of on 17.03.2023. Then, I.A.No.3 was filed by the respondent seeking for amendment, that was allowed; then I.A.No.10 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment and also filed I.A.Nos.8 and 9 for re-opening the petitioner's evidence and recalling PW-1 for production of certain documents after closing the evidence of the parties. All those interlocutory applications were allowed. Now, the present I.A.No.11 is filed. The Court has considered the application under Order XI Rue 12 read with Section 151 of CPC and further, the Court has

- 6 -

observed that the husband has submitted details of his income-tax particulars in his affidavit of assets and liabilities. The respondent has cross-examined the husband in detail, i.e., the counsel for the wife has cross- examined the husband in detail in order to discover the trust property. The Court observed that an appeal in R.A. No.123 of 2020 is pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru between the parties as the suit filed by the wife was dismissed. The Court felt that at that point of time, directing the respondent/husband to give the information as sought for by the petitioner under this I.A. will not be appropriate and further observed that with regard to the assets and liabilities statements, when the counsel has cross-examined the husband in detail, the Court felt that it is not necessary to issue directions to the husband to discover the documents mentioned in I.A.No. 11 for fair disposal of the petition and accordingly, dismissed the application.

- 7 -

6. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the Court below dismissed the application mainly on the ground that he has been coming before this Court by filing several applications. He submits that under Order XI Rule 12 of CPC, an application can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another¹ and drawing the attention of the Court to para No.72.5, submits that if apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is required, the concerned Court may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof and as per para No.72.6, if there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under order XI of the CPC; On filing of the affidavit, the

(2021) 2 SCC 324

1

- 8 -

Court may invoke the provisions of Order X of the C.P.C or Section 165 of the Evidence Act 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so; The income of one part is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The Court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned. Further, at para No.72.7, it is observed that if during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to light, the party may submit an amended/supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the Court at the time of final determination.

Based on this judgment, the learned counsel submits that the Court below ought to have allowed the I.A.No.11 which is filed by the petitioner, which in the interest of the parties. It is submitted that unless the said information is given by the husband, it would cause lot of hardship to the wife. He submits that now both the matrimonial cases for

- 9 -

dissolution of marriage and also for maintenance are pending before the Court for adjudication. Unless and until, these details are furnished by the husband, it would be difficult for the wife to substantiate her case and also the Court would not be in a position to come to a just conclusion, what would be the income and what amount the wife is entitled.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that matrimonial case is filed in the year 2018 and is still pending and he filed the docket proceedings before the Court below and basing on that, he submits that the matter has been adjourned on several occasions. Several applications were filed till now and all those applications were allowed. It is stated that he has filed his statement of assets and liabilities on 27.06.2022 and the present application came to be filed on 28.06.2023. The learned counsel submits that though the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh case (referred supra) has held that, whenever the party wishes to file the

- 10 -

application, there should be relevancy and there should be some reasonable cause for not filing the said application at an earliest point of time, when the cross-examination of the husband was done extensively and it was concluded. Nothing has been stated why the application is filed now. It is submitted that the application is filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings. It is submitted that both the wife and husband are Trustees of RET and earlier, when the wife has filed a suit, she had also sought for information pertaining to the assets of the Trust and the said suit was dismissed and she preferred an appeal and the appeal is pending. The Court below has gone into this aspect and also observed that if the said appeal is pending, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for the Court to pass any order directing the respondent to submit the details. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel that whatever are the details of the transactions with the Trust, it is not the personal income of the husband and it would not make any difference for the alimony or maintenance that is going to be decided by the Court. He

- 11 -

submits that the Court below had rightly concluded and dismissed the application.

8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record.

9. The husband has filed the matrimonial case seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty in the year 2018. This Court has perused the docket proceedings that are placed before the Court by the petitioner/husband wherein it shows that several interlocutory applications were filed by the respondent/wife and one after the other, they have been allowed. Further, questioning the interim maintenance and on other petitions, where she was aggrieved, she has come before this Court and basing on the orders passed by this Court, applications were decided, particularly, on the statement of assets and liabilities, the husband was cross-examined at length by the counsel for the wife. Now, this application came to be filed seeking the following documents:

- 12 -

1. The title deeds pertaining to the immovable property owned by the opponent showing the Sy.No. and extent of land.

2. The present RTC of the aforesaid property.

3. Saving Bank account extract/pass book pertaining to Petitioner account No.113201010015 791 of Vijaya Bank from the date of opening till now showing the transactions of the opponent.

4. Bank account extra/pass book of A/c. No.1333201006225 of Mangalore Institute of Technology from the date of its opening till date. 9A. Now, the wife wants these documents to be produced by the husband. There is no dispute that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh case (referred supra), at any stage of the proceedings, if the documents as sought for are relevant, it has to be produced. But at any stage of the proceedings, it cannot be interpreted in such a way that when everything is within the knowledge of the petitioner, i.e., statement of assets and liabilities were filed way back on 27.06.2022, having cross-examined at length nearly after one year, the

- 13 -

wife cannot come up with such an application. Even assuming that there is some delay, why the application could not be filed before cross-examining him or what are the subsequent events, which necessitated the applicant to come up with this application, nothing has been stated. It is only the brief facts, which are filed in support of the application. Looking at this, this Court is of the view that the one of the intention of the applicant appears to be, to drag on the proceedings; Secondly, she wanted the details pertaining to the accounts of MITE. In respect of this Institution and the relief, she filed a suit and the said suit is dismissed and an appeal is pending. The Court below had rightly held that at this juncture, it would not be appropriate for the Court to pass any order.

- 14 -

and why she has come up now and how that is useful to her and also with regard to the MITE, which is a Trust and in view of the details pertaining to that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, it would not have an impact on the alimony or interim maintenance that is going to be fixed by the Court. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere and the writ petition is dismissed.

ORDER

1. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

DH

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15