Delhi High Court
Nidhi Jain vs Ankit Jain on 31 July, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 02.05.2025
Pronounced on: 31.07.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 5004/2024 & CRL.M.A. 19130/2024 STAY
NIDHI JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
ANKIT JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arush Bhandari and
Ms. Shimran Shah, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated
07.06.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dwarka Courts,
Delhi, whereby applications preferred by the petitioner for summoning
of witnesses were dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that Petitioner and
Respondent got married on 16.02.2012. Since after marriage, she was
subjected to domestic violence by the Respondent and his family to
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
fulfill dowry demands. On 18.11.2012, the Respondent and his family
locked the matrimonial home, leaving the Petitioner deserted without
resources, after transferring her stridhan, jewellery and cash to their
family accounts. Respondent falsely implicated the Petitioner and her
family in multiple frivolous litigations, all of which were later
dismissed or withdrawn. Despite the Respondent’s concealment of his
assets and income, including his appointment as Chief Financial
Officer [“CFO”] in “Punj Lloyd Solar Power Limited”, the Petitioner
filed a series of applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to prove these
concealments and establish his true financial status, which were
initially allowed by the court. However, the Family Court, on
07.06.2024, dismissed the Petitioner’s application to summon
witnesses, and the case is now fixed for final arguments on
29.07.2024, despite the Petitioner’s repeated requests to address these
crucial issues before proceeding to final arguments.
3. The Petitioner submits that the Family Court’s dismissal of her
application dated 13.03.2024, which sought to summon witnesses,
including bank authorities, to substantiate her statement in the
Evidence Affidavit, is unjustified and contrary to the directions in the
order dated 11.03.2025. The Petitioner specifically sought to
authenticate the ‘Shakti Nagar property’ document, a critical piece of
evidence that would shed light on the Respondent’s concealed
financial status and substantial income. The Petitioner’s statement in
her Evidence Affidavit reveals that the Respondent deliberately
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
transferred the sale proceeds of his sole Noida property to his mother’s
name, attempting to disguise his assets and financial capacity. Despite
the Family Court’s earlier permission under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to
prove the authenticity of this document, the refusal to summon the
bank witnesses renders the Petitioner’s statement incomplete and
undermines her attempt to substantiate her case.
4. It is further submitted that the Respondent, throughout the trial,
has misrepresented his financial situation, falsely portraying himself
as having no significant income or assets. The Petitioner argues that
Respondent has deliberately concealed his assets, including his
appointment as CFO in 2014 and ownership of multiple properties, in
an attempt to avoid disclosing his true financial capacity. The
application seeking to uncover these concealments, filed on
13.09.2017, was allowed by the Court, leading to the Petitioner’s
examination and the subsequent cross-examination of the Respondent.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the Petitioner discovered that
the Respondent had transferred assets to his family members,
including his mother and brother, in an effort to mislead the Court and
avoid paying legitimate maintenance dues.
5. Reliance is placed on settled legal precedents, including the
Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha Criminal Appeal
730/2020 and the case of Sandeep Walia v. Monika Uppal
CRL.REV.P. 179/2019, which recognize that when a husband
conceals his income or assets, the court must take into account his true
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
financial status for the determination of maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the Petitioner cites the case of Vikas
Ahluwalia v. Simran Ahluwalia FAO143/2013 and Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders Civil Appeal Nos.
2120 to 2122 of 1972, where courts have acknowledged that assets are
often transferred in matrimonial disputes to avoid paying rightful dues.
The Petitioner further asserts that the Respondent’s actions, including
domestic violence, illegal retention of stridhan, and filing of frivolous
litigations, are part of a larger scheme to deprive her of her legal
entitlements.
6. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that
the Petitioner has come to the Court with unclean hands, citing several
instances of delay tactics employed by the Petitioner in the
proceedings. It is contended that the Petitioner filed numerous
applications with the intent to derail the maintenance petition, and
such actions have caused undue delays in the proceedings. The
Respondent highlights that the issues in this matter were framed on
18.09.2013, and the Petitioner’s evidence was closed on 19.08.2014.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s cross-examination was concluded on
17.02.2016, and the Petitioner filed an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. shortly, thereafter, leading to further adjournments and delays,
despite specific directions from the coordinate bench to expedite the
matter.
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
7. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent while relying on
the impugned order, submits that the witnesses sought to be
summoned are not relevant to the Petitioner’s case. The Respondent
asserts that the Petitioner has no substantial evidence to support her
claims and that her actions are part of a deliberate attempt to prolong
the litigation. The Respondent further refers to orders dated
18.11.2021 and 24.04.2023, where the trial court specifically noted the
Petitioner’s delay tactics. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s conduct,
including the filing of repetitive applications and non-cooperation, is
an attempt to create litigation fatigue and further delay the proceedings
in a case that involves a short-term marriage of approximately 6-8
months.
8. In the light of rival submissions made and material placed on
record, this Court is of the view that learned Family Court erred in
dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C,
which reads as under:-
“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person
present.
– Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other
proceeding under this Code, summon any person in attendance,
though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any
person already examined; and the Court shall summon and
examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence
appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.
[311-A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen
signatures or handwriting. [Inserted by Act of 2005, Section 27
(w.e.f. 23-6-2006).]
– If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes
of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient
to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimenCRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and
in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced
or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and
shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting: Provided that
no order shall be made under this Section unless the person has at
some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or
proceeding.]”
9. Section 311 Cr.P.C grants wide discretion to the Court to
summon, recall or re-examine witnesses at any stage of the
proceedings. The objective is to ensure that the truth emerges and
justice is served. However, at the same time, such power must be
exercised with caution, fairness and judicial prudence so that it does
not become an instrument of delay or abuse.
10. It is apparent from the language that the Section consists of two
parts. The first part is discretionary inasmuch as it allows the Court to
summon or recall witnesses, if it thinks fit, while the second part is
mandatory-if the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case,
the Court must summon or recall the witnesses. Section 311 overrides
the procedural technicalities in the interest of justice.
11. In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. vs. State of
Gujarat & Ors 2004 4 SCC 158, the Supreme Court held that the
Court has wide discretionary power to recall and re-examine the
witnesses to arrive at the truth.
12. In Natasha v. CBI (State) Crl. Appeal no. 709/2013, the Apex
Court inter alia held that Section 311 Cr.P.C. grants wide
discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses at any stage to
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
ensure a just decision. This discretion must be exercised judiciously,
not arbitrarily.
13. In paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the learned trial Court
crystallized the cumulative purpose of the three pending applications
filed by the petitioner to summon the following documents:-
“A. Concerned official from Axis Bank, with a copy of the bank
statement (rubber stamped &/or signed) of following a/cs only for date
05.08.2013 (both debit and credit):
(i)a/c bearing no. 054010100085612 in name of Anju Jain
(ii) a/c bearing no. 054010100200851 in name of Vibha
(iii) a/c bearing no. 911010040103051 in name of Rajender Kumar
Jain.
Address: 23/ 10, Indra Chand, Shastri Marg, Block 23, Shakti Nagar,
New Delhi 110007, IFSC UTIB0000054.
B. Concerned official from Bank of Baroda, with copy of the bank
statement of a/c bearing no. 00920100007863 in the name of Rani
Jain, for the period 01.03.2019 till 30.09.2019 (rubber stamped &/or
signed).
Address: 114-A, Ground floor, Kamla Nagar Chowk, Shakti- Nagar,
Delhi 110007. IFSC BARBOSHAKTI
C. Concerned official from ICICI Bank, with copy of the bank ·
statement (rubber stamped &/or signed) of following a/cs:
i. A/C bearing. no. 038701000834 in the name of Rishabh Jain
only for date 05.08.2013 (both debit and credit).
ii. a/c bearing no.004601562371 in name of Rishabh Jain, for period
01.03.2019 till 30.09.2019.
iii. a/c bearing no. 039901552365 in name
of Ankit Jain, for the period 01.11.2016 till 31.03.2017.
Address: 33, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi
110025.
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
OR any other branch of ICICI Bank Ltd.
(Address: Ua/31, Jawahar Nagar, Kam/a
Nagar, New Delhi- 10007).
D. Concerned official from Federal Bank, with the following:
i) Copy of the bank statement of a/c bearing no.13825600012509
ID:130436262), OD-FF-Home Extra Gain, in the joint name of
Rishabh Jain and Rani Jain, forthe period 01.03.2019 till 30.09.2019
(ii) Office record of the Loan Agreement (to purchase the property no.
21/6, Ground Floor, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007), Sanction Order
and List of Documents (LOD) alongwith their photocopy (rubber
stamped &/or signed).
Address: 1001, Faiz Road, Arya Samaj Road Crossing, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi 110005.IFSCFDRL0001382.
E. Concerned official from Dy. Assessor and collector, North Delhi
Municipal Corporation,Karol Bagh Zone, with complete records
available in your office of shop bearing no.2632117,
Shadikhampur, Main Patel Road, New Delhi-110008, near metro
pillar no. 213, including the following:
– Office record of the Sale deed dated 22.07.1970 executed in favour
of Sh.Ghasi Ram Jain, duly registered with Sub-Registrar- I,
Kashmere Gate vide registration no.5690,Addl.Book no. I, Volume no.
2418, Page 96-97 on 24.07.1970alongwith the photocopy.
-Office record of the Mutation Document no. TAX/KBZ/95/1239 by
which the said shop is mutated in the name of Sh. Narender Kumar
and Sh. Virender Kumar from the name of Sh. Ghasi Ram on
11.09.1995,issued by Asst. Assessor & Collector alongwith with the
photocopy. Address: Desh Bandhu Gupta
Road,BlockChristianColony,17 B, Dev Nagar, Anand Parbat,
NewDelhi – 110005, near bus terminal of route No.212″
14. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent deliberately
sold his property in Noida and diverted the sale proceeds to the
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
accounts of his family members and such money was utilized for the
purchase of a property in Shakti Nagar in the name of one of the
family members of the respondent. This, according to her, has been
done by the respondent deliberately to show himself as a man of no
means with limited financial capacity, to avoid payment of legitimate
dues/equi-status maintenance to the petitioner.
15. According to the petitioner, on 05.08.2013, from the sale
proceeds of the Noida flat, respondent diverted an amount of Rs. 5.25
lakhs to the Axis bank account of his mother. On the same date, huge
cash was also deposited in the bank accounts of the family members of
the respondent in their various bank accounts. Petitioner wants to
demonstrate through such records that respondent deliberately
diverted the sale proceeds of Noida flat in the name of family
members, to escape his liability of payment of due maintenance.
16. It is not uncommon that when there are matrimonial differences
between the husband and wife, many times husbands tend to suppress
their real income and resort to transferring their assets to avoid
payment of legitimate dues to their wives. The financial status,
including income, assets and means of the respondent are of relevant
consideration in determining the quantum of maintenance in a petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. By seeking to summon the statements of
accounts of family members of the respondent, petitioner intends to
bring on record the chain of diversion of funds from the sale of Noida
property to establish that the said funds were used for the purchase of
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
Shakti Nagar property by the respondent. Denying the petitioner an
opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of
maintenance proceedings and undermine the principles laid down
in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), wherein the Supreme Court issued
directions to conduct a realistic assessment of financial status,
including instances of concealment. The Family Court’s reliance on
procedural history to justify its refusal, such as alleged delays and
multiple applications, does not outweigh the petitioner’s right to a fair
opportunity to substantiate her claim, especially when prior orders had
already allowed her to lead the evidence. The dismissal order fails to
engage with the relevance and necessity of the evidence sought, and
instead treats the petitioner’s applications as mere delaying tactics
without properly appreciating their substance.
17. No doubt, the petition was filed way back in the year 2013 and
has not been disposed of till date and applications under Section 311
Cr. PC have been preferred at the stage of final arguments. However,
power under Section 311 Cr.P.C can be exercised at any stage of
enquiry, trial and other proceedings. Such power can be invoked even
at the stage of final arguments.
18. Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency
and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic
approach. The documents and witnesses sought to be introduced by
the petitioner are not collateral or immaterial but rather, they directly
affect the determination of maintenance which is a matter of
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42
subsistence. The Family Court ought to have adopted a more
purposive interpretation of its enabling powers under Section 311
Cr.P.C., instead of taking a hyper-technical view.
19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 is set aside.
The petition is allowed. The learned Family Court is directed to permit
the petitioner to summon the concerned witnesses with the relevant
record. However, it is directed that the remaining proceedings be
conducted expeditiously and all out efforts be made to dispose of the
case as early as possible and preferably within a period of next three
months. Both sides are directed to cooperate with the trial Court in an
effort to expeditiously dispose of the petition.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
31st July, 2025
NA
CRL.M.C. 5004-2024 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:31.07.2025
16:14:42