: 1 : cwp-626-11=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2011 Deepika A. Sethia .. Petitioner v/s. Alok C. Sethia .. Respondent ......... Ms. Usha Andewar for the petitioner Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 22nd MARCH, 2011 P.C. : 1. The petitioner has filed application for maintenance in the Family Court at Bombay being Petition No.C-188 of 2007. The evidence of the petitioner was over. Thereafter, the evidence of the respondent was also over and on 9th November, 2010, the petitioner filed an application at Exh.83 praying that witness summons be issued along with request for production of certain documents so that certain aspects as regards income of the respondent can be placed before the Court. This application has been rejected by the learned Judge of the Family Court after giving due hearing to the parties. The said application has been rejected by order dated 1st January, 2011. : 2 : cwp-626-11=.sxw 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to submit that production of these two documents is very vital as the petitioner would like to bring on record figures as regards income of the respondent. She tried to submit that when certain documents were shown to the respondent in the cross-examination, respondent refused to accept those documents and he had denied the same. According to her in order to bring before the Court correct figures pertaining to the income of the respondent, the application ought to have been granted. 3. After having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to reject this petition at the stage of admission. Reasons are as under. 4. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that petitioner did not have full opportunity to place documents before the court. Thereafter the respondent gave evidence and it is only after the closure of the stage of recording of evidence, the application at Exh.83 has been filed. 5. After having perused order dated 1st January, 2011, I am not inclined to take a view different than what has been taken by the learned Judge of the Family Court. It is will settled that a party who : 3 : cwp-626-11=.sxw would like to bring the figures as regards the income of the respondent, has to make every efforts to place on record the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence before the turn of the said party comes to an end. In this case, after the evidence of respondent was over, petitioner wanted to lead some evidence. Surely, this procedure is bound to cause prejudice to the respondent. In my view, filing of the application for production of documents along with issuance of witness summons after the case of respondent is closed, cannot be approved of. Even otherwise, the learned Judge has observed in the impugned order that at an appropriate stage adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent for not placing correct figures. In my view, there is no need to interfere in the order passed by learned Judge of the Family Court. 6. Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)