(1) (13) WP 3880/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 3880 OF 2011 Asha Pandey .. Petitioner Vs. Chandrashekhar Pandey .. Respondent Mr. R. T. Lalwani for the Petitioner. Ms. Kokila Karla appeared in the morning session for the Respondent. Respondent present. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 18 th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The Respondent has produced certain documents directed to be produced in the last order of this Court dated 29th June, 2011 and deposited Rs.1 lac in this Court. 2. The Respondent tenders a compilation. He has given a copy of compilation to the Petitioner’s Advocate. The Respondent has shown the Court his original documents. The following documents are produced by the Respondent which may be verified by the Petitioner’s Advocate from his compilation. 1. Income Tax Returns for the Assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 along with certain annexures including the profit & loss account and balance-sheet of the company. The documents are signed by Bharat Parekh and Company, Chartered (2) (13) WP 3880/11 Accountants. The Respondent, who is present in Court, states that there are no documents other than the documents annexed to his Return filed with Income Tax Authorities. 2. One letter of MIDC, Mhape regarding a Gala which has been leased from the MIDC. The Respondent states that that is the only document with regard to the Gala leased to him. 3. Four copies of resolution and two letters of appointment in respect of two of the employees Suchita Sawant and Shruti Raut. 4. Three policy schedules of TATA AIG Insurance. 5. DMAT account of the Respondent in ICICI Bank. 6. Bank Account of the Company of the Respondent M/s. Shekhar Glass Fibre Pvt. Ltd. for the years 2009, 2009 and 2010 in ICICI Bank until 31st March, 2010. 7. Bank account of the Respondent in ICICI Bank from 2007 till date. 8. Loan account of the Respondent with ICICI Bank which has been closed. 9. The registration certificate of one car which is shown to be in the name of his father and the registration certificate of another car bearing No. MH-43 R-3710 which is stated to be of the Respondent. The Respondent states that he has no other car. 10.Copies of the registration receipts and Index II in respect of three flats being Flat No.1301 in Nilambari Co-operative Housing Society at New (3) (13) WP 3880/11 Mumbai and Flat Nos. 301 & 306 in Yash Paradise Society which are stated to be the Company flats of the Respondent by the Petitioner’s wife and which are stated to be of the father, mother and sister of the Respondent by the Respondent without producing copies of registered agreements from his father, mother or sister. 3. The impugned order has refused to strike off the defence of the Respondent herein for failure to produce all comprehensive documents which would enable the Court to decide the interim application for maintenance taken out by the Petitioner-wife. 4. After much resistance the Respondent has now produced the aforesaid documents. It would be best that the learned Judge considers these documents as also any other documents which both the parties may want to rely upon to decide the application for interim maintenance on merits. 5. The learned Judge shall consider the documents produced by the Respondent-husband as also any other documents relied upon by both the parties in the application for maintenance. The learned Judge may draw such inference as may be required in law with regard to the non production of any documents which were called upon by the Petitioner-wife as well as this Court but has not been produced even today and pass an order on merits. (4) (13) WP 3880/11 6. Mr. Lalwani states that the Petitioner-wife has filed her application for interim maintenance since 11th June, 2007. The Respondent has deposited Rs.1 lac in this Court. The Petitioner-wife has not been granted any maintenance since the Respondent failed to prove the documents called upon by her. The sum of Rs.1 lac deposited by the Respondent is allowed to be withdrawn by the Petitioner-wife. That amount may be adjusted for payment of maintenance as directed by the trial Court. 7. Consequently the order of the learned Judge impugned in this Petition dated 22nd February, 2011 is not interfered with except for the above directions. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)