Case: ASHI KUMAR Vs. ASEEM AGARWAL

Pr: Petitioner in person alongwith her father and Sh.N.K. Srivastava. SPA Ms. Reena Jain for the respondent is also advocate for respondent.      Petitioner wants to file formal response to affidavit as referred in order dated 6/12/2013. On communication from the respondent along with the attested affidavit in original (copy already filed) has been filed by the Ld. SPA.      Adjourned for filing of response by the petitioner and for production of remaining original documents, if any and admission/denial of documents on 12/3/2014. Let the attested copy of divorce petition and the judgment and decree passed by Family Court at Auckland in New Zealand be filed by the respondent and advance copy be given to the other side.5. It is not in dispute that this order has been allowed to become final by the respondent. As a matter of fact, the respondent partly complied with this direction by only producing decree passed by the Family Court at Aukland in New Zealand and not the judgment and divorce petition. Resultantly, the appellant moved the Family Court for issuing necessary directions to the respondent, which application was allowed by the Family Court vide order dated 01.12.2018.      6. Indisputably, directions were issued to the respondent to produce the stated documents which, however, remained uncomplied till 19.03.2019. On 29.03.2019 the respondent through counsel gave undertaking to the Family Court that he would file the documents on the next date of hearing. When the matter was again taken up on 03.04.2019, the Family Court was informed that the documents are in transit. Even on 21.05.2019, the respondent gave impression to the Family court that the documents were still in transit.      7. Instead of complying with the undertaking, the respondent chose to file writ petition to challenge the order dated 01.12.2018, which, as aforesaid, has been entertained by the High Court being oblivious of the fact that the respondent had given a solemn undertaking to the Family Court to produce the documents, through his counsel.

Reasoning: 8. Counsel for the appellant contends that the undertaking to the Family Court was given not only by the counsel appearing for the respondent but also by his Power of Attorney. The respondent, however, disputes the correctness of this submission. We are not required to go into this controversyissue. On that basis, the High Court proceeded to stay the trial10. In our opinion, the respondent having given undertaking to the Family Court through counsel and/or Power of Attorney, as the case may be, was obliged to comply with the same unless absolved therefrom by the Family Court. The question of entertaining writ petition despite such undertaking to the Family Court cannot be countenanced. If the respondent is not relieved of the undertaking by the Family Court, he must take the consequences of the order passed by the Family Court directing production of the said documents. We are of the opinion that if this position was brought to the notice of the High Court on 15.07.2019, perhaps the writ petition would not have been entertained by the High Court11. The counsel for the respondent submits that this argument was advanced before the High Court. If so, the High Court ought to have taken note of the same in the impugned judgment, which is conspicuously absent. Even for that reason, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained9. Suffice it to note that the High Court was impressed by the specious argument of the respondent that the documents insisted upon are not relevant to decide the controversy inissue. On that basis, the High Court proceeded to stay the