The court reinforced that maintenance proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act should be expedited and not used as a tool for delaying divorce proceedings.

ORDER :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the wife, Shaily Kunal Agrawal, challenging the order dated 29.03.2024 passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad. By the aforesaid order, the Family Court rejected the application Exh.66 filed by the wife in Family Suit No. 1963 of 2021. Family Suit No. 1963 of 2021 has been filed by the respondent – Kunal Agrawal for divorce from the appellant under the provisions of Sec.13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 Hindu Marriage Petition No. 1963 of 2021 has been filed by the husband before the Family Court on 14.09.2021 praying that he be granted a decree of divorce. The family suit is pending before the Family Court. The case of the husband is that he married the respondent / appellant – wife in the year 2015. The marriage has broken and therefore he desires a decree of divorce.

2.2 To this application, the appellant – wife filed a response in July 2022 denying the allegations in the application. The appellant filed an application under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance for herself and her son in the pending family suit. She prayed that the respondent – husband be directed to pay a total of Rs.25 lakhs per month as maintenance towards herself and her minor son. Further prayer was to pay cost of Rs.5 lakhs as litigation charges.

2.3 A reply was filed by the husband to the application under Sec.24 in October, 2022 within a month of the application together with an affidavit of assets and liabilities in accordance with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha., rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 dated 04.11.2020. The respondent has also filed an affidavit showing details of income with supporting documents. The appellant – wife filed an application with a prayer that the husband be directed to produce documents in the format and in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh(supra). According to the application so filed, the husband filed a reply to the production application giving the details of his assets showing financial gains, audit reports etc., in the companies where he was a whole time Director and the salary or the honorarium that he was earning.

2.4 The wife, thereafter, filed second application Exh.45 for production of certain other documents at the hands of the respondent – husband, wherein, the Family Court passed an order dated 06.03.2023 rejecting such an application at the hands of the wife. That order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application was carried in appeal by the appellant – wife by filing First Appeal No.1820 of 2023. Initially, an order was passed on 01.05.2023 in the appeal. By an order dated 19.12.2023, the first appeal at the hands of the wife was disposed of on a statement being made by the respondent husband that whatever documents that the wife intends him to produce in the appeal, will be produced before the Trial Court. The appeal was accordingly disposed of. In compliance of the order dated 19.12.2023, the respondent husband placed a list of documents before the Family Court.

2.5 The appellant – wife thereafter once again filed an application Exh.60 requesting the Family Court that she be permitted to cross-examine the respondent-husband in order to elicit information from him of the correct income. The application was filed on 23.01.2024. The Family Court by its order dated 05.02.2024, rejected the wife’s application Exh.60. Undeterred by the rejection of this application, the wife produced documents at Exh.61 showing the details of the husband’s income and properties. Thereafter, application Exh.66 was filed on which the impugned order has been passed. Reading of the application at Exh.66 indicates that the wife wanted certain details of the properties in question, which according to the husband, she already had. By the order impugned before us, such an application Exh.66 for productio