Wife Can Summon Bank Officials to Uncover Husband’s Real Income, Rules Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that a wife is entitled to summon witnesses, including bank officials, to establish her husband's actual financial status.

In a detailed 11-page verdict, Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed the wife’s plea under Section 311 CrPC and overturned the Family Court’s earlier decision that had rejected her request.

"Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic approach,” the judge added.

The judge said that the documents and witnesses sought by the petitioner are not collateral or irrelevant but directly impact the determination of maintenance, which is a matter concerning her 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," the court said.

Noting that husbands often hide their actual earnings to evade maintenance obligations, the court said, "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 petitione- wife and respondent -husband got married on 16 February 2012. The wife had alleged that after her marriage, she was subjected to domestic violence by the husband and his family to fulfil dowry demands. It was also alleged that the respondent and his family had locked the matrimonial home and deserted the wife without transferring her stridhan, jewellery, or cash.

The petitioner wife had sought to authenticate the Shakti Nagar property document to expose the husband’s income. It was alleged that the husband transferred sale proceeds from his Noida property to his mother to conceal assets. It was also claimed that the husband had 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.

On the other hand, the respondent husband had argued that the plea seeking to call witnesses was not relevant to the petitioner’s case. The husband argued that the wife had approached the court with unclean hands and also cited several instances of delay tactics employed by the wife in the proceedings. He contended that the wife filed numerous applications with the intent to derail the maintenance petition.

Taking note of the submissions, the judge said that the Family Court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

“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,” the court added.

“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,” the court noted

The High Court added that the petitioner wants to demonstrate through such records that the respondent deliberately diverted the sale proceeds of the Noida flat in the name of family members to escape his liability of payment of due maintenance.

By seeking to summon the bank statements of his family members, the court noted the petitioner intended to establish a clear trail of fund diversion from the Noida sale, ultimately leading to the purchase of the Shakti Nagar property in the husband’s name.

Court said that denying the petitioner an opportunity to prove the same would frustrate the objective of maintenance proceedings.

Accordingly, the HC set aside the Family Court order and directed it to permit the petitioner to summon the concerned witnesses with the relevant record.

It also 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 the next three months.

Case Title:   X vs Y

Judgement Date: 31 July 2025

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja