Section 311 Cr.P.C. permits summoning witnesses essential for justice, and must be judiciously exercised even at final argument stages to prevent concealment issues in maintenance cases.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, whereby applications preferred by the petitioner for summoning of witnesses were dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that Petitioner and Respondent got married on 16.02.2012. Since after marriage, she was subjected to domestic violence by the Respondent and his family to fulfill dowry demands. On 18.11.2012, the Respondent and his family locked the matrimonial home, leaving the Petitioner deserted without resources, after transferring her stridhan, jewellery and cash to their family accounts. Respondent falsely implicated the Petitioner and her family in multiple frivolous litigations, all of which were later dismissed or withdrawn. Despite the Respondent's concealment of his assets and income, including his appointment as Chief Financial Officer [“CFO”] in “Punj Lloyd Solar Power Limited”, the Petitioner filed a series of applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to prove these concealments and establish his true financial status, which were initially allowed by the court. However, the Family Court, on 07.06.2024, dismissed the Petitioner’s application to summon witnesses, and the case is now fixed for final arguments on 29.07.2024, despite the Petitioner’s repeated requests to address these crucial issues before proceeding to final arguments.

3. The Petitioner submits that the Family Court’s dismissal of her application dated 13.03.2024, which sought to summon witnesses, including bank authorities, to substantiate her statement in the Evidence Affidavit, is unjustified and contrary to the directions in the order dated 11.03.2025. The Petitioner specifically sought to authenticate the 'Shakti Nagar property' document, a critical piece of evidence that would shed light on the Respondent’s concealed financial status and substantial income. The Petitioner’s statement in her Evidence Affidavit reveals that the Respondent deliberately transferred the sale proceeds of his sole Noida property to his mother’s name, attempting to disguise his assets and financial capacity. Despite the Family Court’s earlier permission under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to prove the authenticity of this document, the refusal to summon the bank witnesses renders the Petitioner’s statement incomplete and undermines her attempt to substantiate her case.

4. It is further submitted that the Respondent, throughout the trial, has misrepresented his financial situation, falsely portraying himself as having no significant income or assets. The Petitioner argues that Respondent has deliberately concealed his assets, including his appointment as CFO in 2014 and ownership of multiple properties, in an attempt to avoid disclosing his true financial capacity. The application seeking to uncover these concealments, filed on 13.09.2017, was allowed by the Court, leading to the Petitioner’s examination and the subsequent cross-examination of the Respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Petitioner discovered that the Respondent had transferred assets to his family members, including his mother and brother, in an effort to mislead the Court and avoid paying legitimate maintenance dues.

5. Reliance is placed on settled legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha Criminal Appeal 730/2020 and the case of Sandeep Walia v. Monika Uppal CRL.REV.P. 179/2019 , which recognize that when a husband conceals his income or assets, the court must take into account his true financial status for the determination of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the Petitioner cites the case of Vikas Ahluwalia v. Simran Ahluwalia FAO143/2013 and Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders Civil Appeal Nos. 21