Smt. Tanya Rekhi vs Dipender Singh Rekhi
2005 Latest Caselaw 1437 Del

ORDER

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi disposing of an application under Order 12 Rule 8 read with Order 11 Rule 12 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. I have heard Mr. R.S. Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.P. Narula, Sr. Advocate, learned Counsel for respondent, on the point of admission, and have gone through the impugned order as also copies of the documents placed on the file.

3. The operative portion of the impugned order is as under:

"...As it has been stated by learned Counsel for petitioner at Bar that petitioner has already produced the documents in his possession on the judicial file hence it is directed that applicant/respondent will proceed with the proceedings on the basis of documents already produced by the petitioner. In case applicant will prove that he has not produced any document in his possession, he will suffer all legal consequences.

With these observations this application is disposed of.

Sd/-

ADJ/Delhi"

4. The learned Counsel for the wife has contended that all relevant documents have not been produced by the husband. While the learned Counsel for the husband submitted before the Trial Court that whatever documents were in the possession of the husband, he has produced the same and that if a party does not produce the relevant and material documents in its possession then that party will suffer legal consequences. Needless to say that adverse inference can be drawn against a party which withholds material documents.

5. Considering all the facts and circumstances, in my view, the impugned order is not perverse which may lead to manifest injustice. There is an in-built provision in the Hindu Marriage Act according to which the learned trial Judge has to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and more so in the cases where interim maintenance has been granted to the opposite party. Such miscellaneous and frivolous application only delay the main case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

6. Nothing said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.