In summary proceedings for maintenance, the Family Court's reliance on existing affidavits and income tax returns is sufficient, negating the need for extensive documentation.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays a challenge to the order dated 27.07.2023; passed by the learned Family Court No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as “the Family Court”) in Criminal Case No. 83/2023 (original C.I.S. No. 482/2019), whereby petitioner's application dated 18.08.2022, preferred under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been rejected.

2. Briefly narrated facts appertains are that the petitioner married the respondent No. 2 on 18.02.2003. Thereafter, their matrimonial relationship became sour for which the petitioner and respondent No. 2 along with her two minor children started living separately.

3. The respondent No. 2 filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance. During the course of proceedings, by way of the order dated 19.08.2023, passed by the learned Family Court, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was determined as interim maintenance.

4. Both the parties have filed their affidavits in light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569.

5. In the affidavit so filed, petitioner so also respondent No. 2 have disclosed their income as mentioned in their Income Tax Return.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application dated 18.08.2022 came to be filed by the present petitioner (husband) with a prayer that the respondent (wife) be directed to produce the copies of her income tax returns since 2018. It was also prayed that the respondent No. 2 be directed to produce the Bank statement of the Firm - Anuj Mines and Minerals, which was the proprietorship concern of the respondent.

7. Petitioner's said application was rejected by the learned Family Court vide its order impugned, inter-alia, observing that the respondent has produced all the requisite documents and materials, which was in her power and possession.

8. Mr. Trilok Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner impugning the order passed by the learned Family Court, argued that it was required of the respondent No. 2 to have filed all material proofs regarding her income and she ought to have submitted the particulars of the income of said Firm (Anuj Mines and Minerals), including figures of sales/receipts etc.

9. Inviting Court's attention towards the affidavit that has been filed by the respondent No. 2, Mr. Joshi argued that the respondent No. 2 (wife) is earning substantially and, therefore, it cannot be said that she is not in position to maintain herself.

10. He further argued that unless the Income Tax Returns, after 2018 are produced, it cannot be ascertained with certitude that the respondent No. 2 is not in a position to maintain herself.

11. Mr. Jayant Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2(wife) opposed the prayer made in the petition by contending that not only the present petition even the application dated 18.08.2020 was filed by the petitioner in order to prolong the proceedings and deprive the respondent (wife) of her legitimate right of getting interim maintenance for herself and also for her two children, out of which, one is suffering from autism.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. A simple look at the application filed by the petitioner shows that absolutely unwarranted information and documents have been sought. In order to ascertain as to whether the respondent (wife) is unable to maintain herself and her two children, her affidavit and copy of Income Tax Return is sufficient.

14. Respondent No. 2 has filed not only affidavit but also copies of the income tax returns from which it can easily be ascertained that what is the income of the respondent (wife) and whether she is in a position to maintain herself or not.

15. In the opinion of this Court, the proceedings of determination of maintenance are summary proceedings and subject to law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case