Writ petition challenging the Family Court's rejection of an application to compel the husband to produce income tax returns and recalling the wife as a witness during dissolution proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition.
Writ petition was dismissed; original Family Court orders upholding the rejection of applications were allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
903-wp-5940-2015.doc
Vishal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5940 OF 2015
Nutan Shankar Moily ... Petitioner vs. Shankar Ramanna Moily ... Respondent
Mr. Swapnil Waradkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Jaydev Trivedi, for the Respondent.
CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE: JULY 09, 2015
P.C.:
. The Petition is directed against the order dated 17th March, 2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 3, Bandra, Mumbai in the Petition No. A-1010 of 2012 rejecting the applications (Exhibit 48 and 49). The application(Exhibit 48) was made for directing the income tax officer to furnish income tax returns of Respondent/husband of the year 2001 to 2014 and the application(Exhibit 49) was made that she be recalled as a witness.
that the orders of rejecting these two applications passed by the
1 / 3
903-wp-5940-2015.doc
Family Court is illegal. The learned judge did not consider that the income tax returns of the Respondent/husband are necessary to ascertain the income and there is confusion in respect of flat alloted to the Respondent/husband Shankar Moily in Mhada lottery.
2 / 3
903-wp-5940-2015.doc
claimed, no relief is claimed on the basis of the documents. No maintenance or right of residence is claimed by the Respondent/ husband. Moreover, it is rightly observed by the Family Court that in the cross examination, not a single reference in respect of the document was made. It appears that no questions were put to the Respondent/husband about the production of his income tax returns. Further the learned Judge was also correct in taking view that if the application of recalling of wife is allowed then the similar application would be made by the Respondent/husband and the trial will be dragged.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
3 / 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's rejection of applications for income tax returns production and recalling of a witness was illegal or perverse.
Whether the lack of specific reliance on documents in the maintenance claim necessitated the production of income tax returns.
Whether allowing the recall of the petitioner would result in the trial being unnecessarily dragged out.
Nutan Shankar Moily
Shankar Ramanna Moily
Mr. Judicial Mridula Bhatkar, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
