ANKIT UPADHYAY S/O SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA UPADHYAY Vs. SMT. PRITIPRIYA W/O SHRI ANKIT UPADHYAY D/O SMT. SHARDA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dated 19.4.17 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara in Case No. 28/15, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 2.3.17 summoning the documents from the petitioner's employer in the proceedings under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), stands rejected. The petitioner has also questioned legality of order dated 2.3.17 passed by the court below as aforesaid.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the respondent preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent preferred an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite. The application is being contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. On 1.3.17, the arguments of the parties on the application were heard and the matter was posted for decision on 2.3.17. On 2.3.17, the respondent preferred an application for summoning the pay certificate of the petitioner from his employer M/s. J.K. Cement, Nimbahera. After due consideration, the court below while directing the parties to furnish the information regarding their employment, salary, statements of their bank account as also the income tax returns of the preceding three years, further directed the petitioner's employer M/s. J.K. Cement Ltd., Nimbahera to produce his salary certificate alongwith PAN.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an application for recalling the order dated 2.3.17 passed by the court below stating that the effective order passed by the court as aforesaid in his absence is not unjustified. It was contended that the application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 must be decided on the basis of the documents produced on record by the parties and thus, ignoring this aspect of the matter, the court has erred in summoning the documents from petitioner's employer. After due consideration, the application stands rejected by the court below observing that the court is well within its jurisdiction in summoning the documents for just decision of the application preferred under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. The court observed that it was the responsibility of the petitioner herein to produce the necessary documents on record regarding his financial position and thus, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order passed to ascertain the correct status of his financial position. Accordingly, the application has been rejected. Hence, this petition.