With Husband’s Payslip On File, Madras HC Upholds Refusal To Summon Employer In Wife And Daughter’s Maintenance Case, Though Family Court May Seek Records If Needed

The wife and minor daughter sought maintenance from the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

During those proceedings, they applied under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC to summon the respondent’s employer to produce salary, incentive, variable-pay and other employment records, alleging that he had suppressed his income.

The Family Court dismissed the application, noting that the respondent had filed a payslip and an affidavit of assets and liabilities and finding the summons unnecessary.

The wife and daughter challenged that dismissal in revision.

They also relied on the respondent’s alleged failure to pay interim maintenance and the resulting arrears.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings are intended to provide immediate and effective financial support to a wife and minor child unable to maintain themselves, and the respondent’s income and financial capacity are relevant to determining maintenance.

Under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC, production of third-party documents may be sought, but an allegation of income suppression does not, by itself, require the court to summon an employer; the court must assess whether the documents are necessary for effective adjudication and whether the request is supported by sufficient material.

Revisional interference is warranted where the challenged order discloses patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity.

No judicial precedent is cited in the judgment.

The respondent had already supplied a payslip and an affidavit of assets and liabilities, and the petitioners did not identify specific material showing that the Family Court had exercised its discretion irregularly.

Their apprehension that the respondent might receive additional incentives or variable pay was insufficient, without more, to justify revisional interference.

The Family Court could seek further particulars or employer records later if it found the income information incomplete or unreliable.

The alleged arrears were a serious matter, but did not independently establish that the order refusing the summons was erroneous; the petitioners could pursue enforcement before the competent court.

It directed the Family Court to proceed expeditiously with the maintenance case and determine the respondent’s actual income and financial capacity; the Family Court may call for further salary, incentive or other emolument records if it considers them necessary.

The petitioners were left at liberty to seek enforcement of the interim maintenance order, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.