ORDER :

This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 24.11.2018 passed in Matrimonial Suit No.522 of 2015 (annexure-6) has been challenged, whereby and whereunder petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent/husband under Order 11 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. on 09.08.2018 calling for certain documents, has been rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that a matrimonial divorce suit has been filed by the respondent/wife being Matrimonial Suit No.522 of 2015 before the Family Court, Jamshedpur under Section 13(1) (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce and for return of Stridhana on the ground of cruelty.

3. The respondent has filed written statement on 29.11.2016, denying the allegations made by the petitioner/respondent/wife, thereafter, the suit reaches to the stage of evidence, the respondent/wife has been examined as P.W.-1 and in para-5 of her cross-examination, she has stated that she is working at Hyderabad and is getting Rs.25,000/-as salary, in para-29, she has stated that during the year 2015 to 2017, she had done job.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in her cross-examination, the entire fact has not been narrated by her which necessitated the petitioner/husband to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial Court as conferred under Order 11 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. to direct the respondent/wife to submit an affidavit along with complete list of employers where applicant worked from 2015 to till date with copy of offer letters etc.

5. The respondent/wife has filed rejoinder and rebutted the stand taken in the aforesaid petition by stating inter-alia therein, that the said petition has been filed only to harass her, since the said documents is nothing to do with the ground taken for divorce which is on the ground of cruelty.

6. The trial Court after hearing the parties has passed order on 24.11.2018 rejecting the said petition on the ground that the documents as has been directed to be produced by the respondent/wife is not connected with the ground taken for divorce which is on “cruelty”.

7. Mr. K.C. Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in passing the order since, in the ends of justice, the petition filed under Order 11 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. ought to have been allowed, so that the Court before reaching to the rightful conclusion should have perused the documents, since in the cross-examination, the entire correct fact has not been narrated.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the finding recorded by the trial Court, from which, it is evident that a matrimonial divorce suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff/wife and after appearance, the respondent has filed written statement, thereafter, the suit reaches to the stage of evidence, in course thereof, the petitioner has been examined as P.W.-1 and in the cross-examination at para-5, it has been deposed by her that she is getting Rs.25,000/-, working as teacher in Hyderabad and at para-29, she has deposed that she had worked between the year 2015 to 2017.

9. According to the petitioner/respondent/husband, the aforesaid deposition is not correct, therefore, in order to rebut the deposition made by the respondent in the cross-examination, certain documents are necessary to be perused by the trial Court and therefore, a petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of the trial Court as conferred under Order 11 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. on 09.08.2018 seeking therein the applicant/wife be directed to submit an affidavit along with the following details:-

(i.) Complete list of employers where applicant worked from 2015 till date.

(ii.) Below records of each employers.

(a) Name and complete address of employers.

(b) Duration of service (Date of joining and last working day).

(c) Copy of offer letter.

(d) Copy of Registration letter.

(e) Copy of Relieving letter/E