IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4604 OF 2008 Mrs.Snehal Sandeep Ghadigaonkar ...Petitioner V/s. Mr.Sandeep Shantaram Ghadigaonkar ...Respondent ...... Mr.Abhijit Sarwate for Petitioner. Mr.R.T.Lalwani for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. APRIL 3, 2009. APRIL 3, 2009. APRIL 3, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Lalwani waives notice for Respondent. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. It is reported that parties have decided to take divorce by mutual consent. Sofar as that : 2 : aspect is concerned, no further trial would be necessary. However, the other issue, which will have to be resolved by the Court in the pending matrimonial proceedings is regarding issue of determining maintenance amount to be paid to the Petitioner. Besides, the issue of maintenance for the Petitioner, the parties may also proceed with the issue of access and custody of the minor child if pressed by the Respondent before the lower Court. 5. Insofar as issue of maintenance is concerned, in the context thereof, the Petitioner called upon the Respondent to produce certain documents so as to substantiate her stand regarding the quantum of maintenance to be paid to her. First application in that behalf was filed on 19th September 2007 before the lower Court which was disposed of by order dated 6th February 2008. Although before this Court, the Petitioner once again calls upon the Respondent to produce documents referred to in the said Application, however, since the order dated 6th February 2008 has not been challenged before this Court, the : 3 : question of addressing that grievance of the Petitioner, does not arise. 6. The only other question that needs to be considered in the present Petition is regarding the grievance of non supply of documents referred to in Paragraph 10 of the Application dated March 25, 2008 filed before the lower Court. Out of the documents referred to therein, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner would still insist for production of following five documents: i) Income tax returns filed in U.K. for the F.Y.2003 to 2006. ii) Income Tax Statements filed in Germany from the date of his employment in Germany. iii) Bank statements in Germany where his salary is deposited since 2006. iv) Documents submitted with the returns providing details of "Long terms Gains" and "Income from other sources" for the F.Y.2004-2005-2006 respectively. v) ........ vi) Deputation letter of the Petitioner with TCS. : 4 : vii) .................". 7. Insofar as document at Serial No.(i) is concerned, Counsel for the Respondent has invited my attention to the document produced by the Petitioner along with affidavit which answers the point in issue. The said document is only return of Smart Tech Solutions Ltd. which was controlled by the Respondent. According to the Respondent, this document covers the relevant return for year 2006 which was the last return filed in relation to the Company whereafter the Company has been closed. Counsel for the Respondent, however, states that if there are any other returns of the Company, or for that matter, of the said Company of previous years for period financial year 2003-2005 and if insisted by the Petitioner before the lower Court, the same shall be produced as and when demanded during the trial. Besides, the Respondent through Counsel undertakes to produce individual income-tax return filed in U.K. for the period 2003-2006, if any. This statement is made on the assumption that no individual returns have been filed by the : 5 : Respondent in U.K. 8. Insofar as document at serial No.(ii) is concerned, Counsel for the Respondent states on instructions that the Respondent has never filed any income-tax returns in Germany personally. Moreover, the Respondent has no control over the documents filed in relation to income-tax returns in Germany or on his behalf by his employer. In the circumstances, there is no question of directing the Respondent to produce income-tax statement filed in Germany as is requested by the Petitioner. 9. Insofar as third document is concerned, the Respondent has produced the salary slip issued by the employer in Germany along with affidavit of Suhasini Ghadigaonkar dated 10th February 2009. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that the Respondent should be called upon to produce his bank statements in Germany. However, I am not inclined to accede to this request as it is not the case of the Petitioner that besides the income derived by the Respondent from his employer, he was : 6 : gainfully employed elsewhere in Germany. The requirement of producing document to ascertain the real income of the Respondent, does not mean that the Petitioner would start making a roving enquiry or use the process of Court for that purpose. 10. Insofar as documents insisted upon by the Petitioner referred to at serial No.(iv), the position regarding capital gains and income from other sources is already reflected in the income-tax returns produced by the Respondent which are filed in India for the relevant period. In the circumstances, no further direction in this behalf is necessary. 11. That takes me to the last document namely deputation letter with Tata Consultancy Services. Insofar as document at serial No.(vi) is concerned, the Petitioner calls upon the Respondent to produce deputation letter of the Respondent with TCS. The Respondent has already produced on record document dated 18th September 2008 issued under the : 7 : signature of A.Padmanabhan, Director of Central Euro, Tata Consultancy Services. In my opinion, production of that document is sufficient compliance of the request made by the Petitioner. The reason for production of deputation letter is only to reassure and ascertain the real income of the Respondent which position stands reflected in the salary certificate as well as income-tax returns already filed on record by the Respondent. 12. In the circumstances, no further direction is necessary at the instance of the Petitioner. This Petition is disposed of on the above terms. 13. Counsel for the Petitioner at this stage submits that in the event, the Petitioner is interested in asking for further documents, liberty be given to the Petitioner to apply before the lower Court. In my opinion, as aforesaid, the limited issue that needs to be addressed before the lower Court between the parties is relating to issue of determination of maintenance amount to be payable to the Petitioner. For examining that issue, the Respondent has already produced relevant : 8 : documents. In my opinion, these documents would be more than sufficient to establish the factum of real income of the Respondent. Accordingly, I see no reason as to why the Petitioner should call upon the Respondent to produce further documents. Instead, the parties should proceed with the trial of the case. Indeed, this may not preclude the Petitioner to call upon the Respondent to produce some other document in the context of the statement made by him during his evidence to confront the Respondent in that behalf. 14. Petition disposed of accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.