The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings, as well as the court's authority to direct the filing of specific documents related to financial disclosures.

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 17th November 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 1st September 2021 wherein the respondent was directed to produce only the partnership deed and Income Tax Return, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner got married to the respondent on 23rd February 2015. However, due to the differences between the parties on the allegations of unlawful acts of the respondent, the petitioner filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (in short, the PWDV Act) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate being CC No. 13307/2018 titled 'Sonata Parashar Vs. Tushar Goyal and Ors.' The learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued notice to the respondent on the said application and in the meantime, restrained him from dispossessing the petitioner from the matrimonial home. Vide order dated 27th April 2019, learned M.M. directed both the parties to file their respective income affidavits in terms of the judgment of this Court reported as (2020) 271 DLT 232 in Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma.

3. Grievance of t petitioner is that though she filed an income affidavit along with the relevant documents, however, the respondent filed his income affidavit without disclosing his true financial details along with the illegible, deficient and incomplete documents. Further, despite the undertaking given to file a complete set of income affidavit along with the set of legible documents, the so called complete set of documents filed by the respondent in support of his income affidavit was still incomplete and thus, the petitioner filed a list of missing documents to which the respondent gave an undertaking that after going through the said list, he will file the relevant documents, however, he failed to file the same.

4. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (2021) 2 SCC 324 Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 10th July 2020 held that the arguments on interim maintenance can be heard on the basis of material on record and adverse inference could be drawn at the time of passing the order. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 10th July 2020 before the learned Sessions Court and thereafter, before this Court. The appeal before this Court was disposed of vide order dated 5th July 2021 when both sides undertook that they will file their requisite affidavits/income documents on record before the learned Trial Court from the year 2015 onwards.

5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5th July 2021, fresh income affidavits and the documents were filed, however, again the petitioner raised various objections. The petitioner was thus constrained to file another additional affidavit pointing out a comprehensive list of missing documents deliberately concealed and not filed by the respondent with his income affidavit. While dealing with the objections of the petitioner, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the respondent to file some documents, however, with regard to the other documents, it was held that the same did not concern the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 1st September 2021, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was also dismissed vide order dated 17th November 2021. Hence, the present petition.

6. Vide order dated 1st September 2021, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate noted that the objections at serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12 to 18 and 23 to 32 stood resolved and the main dispute between the parties now survived in relation to the objections at serial Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 19 to 22.

7. The objections to the documents in respect of serial Nos. 4 and 5 were in relation to the bank account statement qua M/s. Lotus L