It is also a settled legal position that as a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed, whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally, whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice.
14. In the present case at hand, since the defendant has not filed any Written Statement, the question of destroying defendant's case does not arise. However, the plaintiff has to prove her case and has to obtain admissions from the defendant to facilitate the proof of her own case.
I am in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Grover, appearing for the plaintiff. The inspection of documents sought for by the plaintiff and the interrogatories delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant are absolutely relevant for deciding the question of quantum of maintenance prayed for by the plaintiff for herself and for her minor child. This in fact is the precise issue in the suit, and therefore, the plaintiff's Chamber Summons has to be allowed.
Bombay High Court
Sonia Senroy Of Mumbai vs Amit Senroy Of Mumbai on 22 April, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR 1998 Bom 302, 1998 (3) BomCR 829, I (1999) DMC 233
Coram: DR. Pratibha Upasani, J.
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff Mrs. Sonia Senroy, praying that the defendant be directed to produce and give inspection of the documents incorporated in Schedule A annexed to the Chamber Summon and furnish copies thereof to the plaintiff. It is also prayed that defendant be directed to answer on oath the interrogatories set-out at Schedule B of the Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff, who is the wife of defendant, has filed this suit against the defendant husband praying that the defendant be directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 27,000/- per month by way of permanent maintenance for herself as set-out in Exhibit Q annexed to the plaint. It is also prayed that the defendant husband be directed to pay to the plaintiff for the minor child Johann, a sum of Rs, 7,000/- per month by way of permanent maintenance as set-out at Annexure R to the plaint. In Annexure Q, the plaintiff has specified the expenses and has given a breakup under various heads like transportation, household expenses, servant's salary, telephone bill. society outgoing, electricity bill and miscellaneous/personal expenses. In the Annexure R, the plaintiff has specified the expenses incurred for the minor child Johann under various heads like education expenses, living expenses and clothes and medical expenses. The defendant has not so far filed his written statement.
3. Plaintiff and defendant are admittedly husband and wife. They also admittedly have a minor son called Johann bom out of the said wedlock on 17th June, 1987, who is at present staying along with his mother/plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff's case is that before her marriage with the defendant, she was working for Cathay Pacific Airlines at the Sahar International Airport, but the defendant, after their marriage, forced the plaintiff to leave her job. The defendant, prior to their marriage, was working at Panam Airlines at Sahar International Airport, and since 1983 onwards, he is working with the Lufthansa Airlines and continues to be in the employment there. The plaintiff and the defendant met sometime in the year 1982, fell in love and got married on 21st February, 1984 at Bombay in accordance with the Hindu Vedic Rites. Thereafter, they started residing at Bandra. Initially, the couple was residing along with the defendant's parents, it is the case of the plaintiff that right from the beginning, she was being harassed by her mother-in-law, and when the situation became intolerable, the plaintiff and defendant shifted to another house sometime in June, 1985 at Vakola. Thereafter, it appears that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant soared and the marriage was on the rocks. It is the case of the plaintiff that often the defendant would not return home even though he was not on night duty. She also found packets of Condom in Defendant's trouser's pocket. On being confronted with the same, the defendant tried to give some excuse. This was again repeated when the defendant came back from one of his foreign trips. The plaintiff found out that defendant was having adulterous relationship with one Nikita Reddy, with whom he also entered into a marriage. The plaintiff also came to know that the said Nikita Reddy had given birth to illegitimate child of the defendant on 15th May, 1996. According to the plaintiff, the defendant's philandering continued and in fact, he contacted sexually transmitted fungal infection. Their marital relationship had completely broken down. There used to be continuous fights between them and defendant used to hit her on several occasions. It was around this time, the plaintiff learnt about the illegitimate child born to Nikita Reddy at Dr. Vasa's Hospital, Kandivli. Their relationship had hit a rock bottom. The defendant himself is living luxuriously while the plaintiff has to look after herself and her minor son Johann. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit for maintenance for herself and the minor child Johann.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that apart from the lucrative job which the defendant has, he also has a business of interior decoration which is paying him handsome dividends. Defendant is an extremely wealthy person and has huge amounts of accounted and uncounted income. It is her estimate that the defendant's earning are approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from various sources. According to her, defendant earns about Rs. 40,000/- from his business of bringing imported electronic goods and selling them in the Indian market. He also earns, according to her, about Rs. 50,000/- per month from his assignments of interior decoration. He also earns Rs. 19,000/- plus allowances per month from his employment with Lufthansa Airlines. It is also her case that the defendant has inherited from his father and has earned Rs. 10,00,000/-. He owns a Chauffeur driven Maruti Van with an Air Conditioner. He also has modern amenities like colour T.V., V.C.R., Microwave Oven, Music System, Air-Conditioners and other expensive items of furniture and fixtures and other immoveable properties. He has also rented a lavish apartment at Green Meadows, Akurli Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Kandivli (East), and spends most of his non-working time along with Nikita and his illegitimate child. According to the plaintiff's case, the rent of that premises is Rs. 4,000/- per month.
6. The Chamber Summons was taken out by the plaintiff in August, 1997, praying that defendant be directed to produce and give inspection of various documents mentioned in schedule A and that, he be directed to answer on oath the interrogatories set out at Schedule B annexed to the Chamber Summons. It is the case of the plaintiff that unless this information is furnished by the defendant, it will be difficult for her to prove her case about the earnings of the defendant, and this information is extremely relevant and vital for fixing the amount of maintenance for herself and for her minor son Johann as claimed by her.
7. The defendant has not filed any Written Statement, but he has filed affidavit-in-reply to the Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff for the above mentioned, prayers.
8. It is submitted by the defendant in his affidavit-in-reply that he has not relied upon these documents mentioned by the plaintiff in the Annexures to the Chamber Summons, nor are they relevant for the purpose of the suit. According to the defendant, this Chamber Summons is premature and they can be administered only at the time of hearing and final disposal of the suit itself, and not at the interim stage. It is also submitted that since Written Statement is not so far filed by him, such an interrogatory cannot be administered by the plaintiff at this stage. According to the defendant, the present Chamber Summons is taken out only by way of making fishing enquiries, and hence, the Chamber Summons is liable to be dismissed with costs.
9. I have heard Mr. Grover appearing for the plaintiff and Ms. Rajani lyer appearing for the defendant at length. I have also perused the plaint, Chamber Summons, affidavit-in-support, and the Schedules A & B annexed to the Chamber Summons, so also, the affidavit-in-reply of the defendant.
10. What is sought in Schedule A is the inspection of documents like certified copies of defendant's income-tax returns from the year 1990 to 1997, defendant's salary certificate in Lufthansa Airlines, and Deeds/Agreements with respect to three flats and one garage, which according to the plaintiff, the defendant has purchased. What the plaintiff wants is the inspection of these documents which are within the control and in the possession of only defendant. She also wants to have inspection of the Pass Book entries from 1990 till date of the defendant's Bank Account No. 3502 in the Shyamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank and his another Pass Book in the Jammu Kashmir Bank and in the State Bank of Mysore, Andheri (East) Branch. She also wants to have inspection of defendant's passport and birth certificate of defendant's illegitimate child.
11. In Schedule B, interrogatories are administered with respect to sources of income of the defendant, list of clients and income from Interior Designing business of the defendant, etc. It is the case of the plaintiff that in order to determine the defendant's true financial status, it is important that the defendant be asked to disclose the sources of funds and details of Bank payments. In fact, in the affidavit-in-support of the Chamber Summons, in each paragraph, the plaintiff has explained as to why she needs inspection of these documents and why the interrogatories are administered which are mentioned in Annexure B. In the affidavit-in-reply, however, the defendant has parried all these submissions. The only stock answer of the defendant seems to be that these enquiries are in the nature of fishing enquiries and are not relevant. I totally disagree with these submissions. The contents of Annexures A and B are extremely relevant for the issue which is to be decided in the suit. The plaintiff has asked for permanent maintenance for herself and for her minor child Johann. Unless the overall picture of the defendant's financial status emerges clearly before the Court, the Court cannot determine whether plaintiff is justified in asking the quantum which she has asked by way of maintenance (or herself and for her child Johann.
12. The defendant's excuse that since he has not filed Written Statement, the plaintiff's Chamber Summons is premature, also is not tenable. The plaintiff under Order XI, Rule 1 of C.R Code can deliver relevant interrogatories to the defendant even before the filing of the Written Statement. In fact, the defendant, as a rule, is not allowed to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiff before he has filed Written Statement. It is not the other way round.
13. It is also a settled legal position that as a general rule, interrogatories are to be allowed, whenever the answer to them will serve either to maintain the case of the party administering them or to destroy the case of the adversary. The power to serve interrogatories is not meant to be confined within narrow technical limits. It should be used liberally, whenever it can shorten litigation and serve the interest of justice.
14. In the present case at hand, since the defendant has not filed any Written Statement, the question of destroying defendant's case does not arise. However, the plaintiff has to prove her case and has to obtain admissions from the defendant to facilitate the proof of her own case.
15. Mr. Grover appearing for the plaintiff relied upon Jamaitrai v. Motilal Chamaria, wherein, it is
observed by the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court that "Administering of interrogatories is to be encouraged because they not infrequently bring an action to an end at an earlier stage to the advantage of all parties concerned.....Interrogatories should be confined to obtaining from the party interrogated admissions of facts which it is necessary for the party interrogating to prove in order to establish his case."
16. I am in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Grover, appearing for the plaintiff. The inspection of documents sought for by the plaintiff and the interrogatories delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant are absolutely relevant for deciding the question of quantum of maintenance prayed for by the plaintiff for herself and for her minor child. This in fact is the precise issue in the suit, and therefore, the plaintiff's Chamber Summons has to be allowed. Hence, the following order :
Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). Defendant is directed to give inspection of the documents in Schedule A annexed to the Chamber Summons and furnish copies thereof to the plaintiff within three weeks from today. He is also directed to answer on oath the interrogatories set out at Schedule B, annexed to the Chamber Summons within three weeks from today.
With these directions, Chamber Summons is disposed of. No costs.
17. Chamber summons allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment