Interrogatories and inspection of documents are permissible in maintenance cases to determine the financial status of the defendant and to obtain admissions that facilitate the proof of the plaintiff's case.

Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - INTERROGATORIES AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS - ORDER XI, RULE 1, C.P. CODE - RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES - LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF POWER TO SERVE INTERROGATORIES - ADMISSIONS TO FACILITATE PROOF OF OWN CASE.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, wife of the defendant, filed a suit for maintenance for herself and her minor child. She sought inspection of documents and answers to interrogatories related to the defendant's income and assets. The defendant resisted, arguing that the requests were premature and amounted to fishing enquiries.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the documents and interrogatories were relevant to the issue of maintenance and that the plaintiff was entitled to obtain admissions from the defendant to facilitate the proof of her own case. The court also noted that the power to serve interrogatories should be used liberally to shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the documents and interrogatories sought by the plaintiff were relevant to the issue of maintenance? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to obtain admissions from the defendant to facilitate the proof of her own case? 3. Whether the power to serve interrogatories should be used liberally to shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the documents and interrogatories were relevant to the issue of maintenance because they would help the court determine the defendant's financial status and ability to pay maintenance. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to obtain admissions from the defendant to facilitate the proof of her own case because this would save time and resources during the trial. 3. The court held that the power to serve interrogatories should be used liberally to shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice because it can help to resolve disputes more quickly and efficiently.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's chamber summons and directed the defendant to produce the documents and answer the interrogatories within three weeks.

JUDGMENT - DR. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff Mrs. Sonia Senroy, praying that the defendant be directed to produce and give inspection of the documents incorporated in Schedule A annexed to the Chamber Summon and furnish copies thereof to the plaintiff. It is also prayed that defendant be directed to answer on oath the interrogatories set-out at Schedule B of the Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff.

2.The plaintiff, who is the wife of defendant, has filed this suit against the defendant husband praying that the defendant be directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 27,000/- per month by way of permanent maintenance for herself as set-out in Exhibit Q annexed to the plaint. It is also prayed that the defendant husband be directed to pay to the plaintiff for the minor child Johann, a sum of Rs, 7,000/- per month by way of permanent maintenance as set-out at Annexure R to the plaint. In Annexure Q, the plaintiff has specified the expenses and has given a breakup under various heads like transportation, household expenses, servant's salary, telephone bill, society outgoing, electricity bill and miscellaneous/personal expenses. In the Annexure R, the plaintiff has specified the expenses incurred for the minor child Johann under various heads like education expenses, living expenses and clothes and medical expenses. The defendant has not so far filed his written statement.

3.Plaintiff and defendant are admittedly husband and wife. They also admittedly have a minor son called Johann born out of the said wedlock on 17th June, 1987, who is at present staying along with his mother/plaintiff.

4.The plaintiff's case is that before her marriage with the defendant, she was working for Cathay Pacific Airlines at the Sahar International Airport, but the defendant, after their marriage, forced the plaintiff to leave her job. The defendant, prior to their marriage, was working at Panam Airlines at Sahar International Airport, and since 1983 onwards, he is working with the Lufthansa Airlines and continues to be in the employment there. The plaintiff and the defendant met sometime in the year 1982, fell in love and got married on 21st February, 1984 at Bombay in accordance with the Hindu Vedic Rites. Thereafter, they started residing at Bandra. Initially, the couple was residing along with the defendant's parents. It is the case of the plaintiff that right from the beginning, she was being harassed by her mother-in-law, and when the situation became intolerable, the plaintiff and defendant shifted to another house sometime in June, 1985 at Vakola. Thereafter, it appears that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant soared and the marriage was on the rocks. It is the case of the plaintiff that often the defendant would not return home even though he was not on night duty. She also found packets of Condom in Defendant's trouser's pocket. On being confronted with the same, the defendant tried to give some excuse. This was again repeated when the defendant came back from one of his foreign trips. The plaintiff found out that defendant was having adulterous relationship with one Nikita Reddy, with whom he also entered into a marriage. The plaintiff also came to know that the said Nikita Reddy had given birth to illegitimate child of the defendant on 15th May, 1996. According to the plaintiff, the defendant's philandering continued and in fact, he contacted sexually transmitted fungal infection. Their marital relationship had completely broken down. There used to be continuous fights between them and defendant used to hit her on several occasions. It was around this time, the plaintiff learnt about the illegitimate child born to Nikita Reddy at Dr. Vasa's Hospital, Kandivli. Their relationship had hit a rock bottom. The defendant himself is living luxuriously while the plaintiff has to look after herself and her minor son Johann. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit for m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis