Anuja Ajinkya Ganechari vs. Ajinkya Nagnath Ganechari
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Anuja w/o. Ajinkya Ganechari, filed a criminal writ petition challenging various orders passed by the Family Court, Aurangabad. She sought to lead evidence by producing documents related to GST Annual Returns, Vivaran Patra 9C, tax liability, and other details of the respondent husband and his father's firms. The petitioner also sought details of the respondent's employer, Cognizant. The Family Court rejected her applications to produce these documents as evidence, citing time-bound proceedings. The petitioner argued that these documents were crucial for the ongoing proceedings. The respondent's counsel stated that the petitioner's evidence was already over but agreed not to object to the exhibition of certified copies of these documents if presented during the decision-making process of pending petitions before the Family Court.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of permitting the petitioner to produce the documents on record. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea to allow her to produce the documents as evidence. Although the petitioner's evidence was stated to be over, the Court, considering the respondent's fair statement not to object to certified copies being exhibited, granted liberty to the petitioner to produce these documents. The Family Court was directed to exhibit such documents and consider them while deciding the pending applications and proceedings, as permitted by law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST-related documents or the employer details themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of allowing their production.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's applications (Exh. 41, 42, 43, and 190) to lead evidence by producing GST-related documents and details of the respondent's employer, thereby impeding her right to present crucial evidence? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the rejected applications were essential for her to produce vital documents, including GST returns, tax liabilities, and details of the respondent's father's firms, as well as information from his employer, Cognizant. She contended that the Family Court's rejection, based on time-bound proceedings, prejudiced her case by preventing her from presenting relevant evidence. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. The respondent's counsel stated that the petitioner's evidence was already concluded but conceded that certified copies of the documents, if exhibited, would not be objected to.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in relation to GST provisions, only general reference to applications and orders.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 913-CrWP-1504-24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2024 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.924 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1504 OF 2024 Anuja w/o. Ajinkya Ganechari, Age 34 years, Occu. Household, R/o. 16, Alkanagari, CIDCO, N-9, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar .. Petitioner Versus Ajinkya Nagnath Ganeechari, Age 34 years, Occu. Service, R/o. B-101, Golden Gate Apartment, Murarji Peth, Solapur, District Solapur .. Respondents Mr. C. V. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Hemant Surve, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 25-06-2025 PER COURT:-
The writ petition is filed challenging the various orders with the prayers as below; “B. By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to allow the application filed by petitioner under Exh. 273 praying to permit the petitioner to lead evidence which has been rejected by order dated 0.06.2024, order below Exh. 271 passed by Family Court requesting to grant time challenging the order dated 20.05.2024 passed 2025:BHC-AUG:16400-DB
2 913-CrWP-1504-24.odt by Principal Court in respect of transfer of proceeding, and Family Court may kindly be directed to consider the application under Exh.42 directing Respondent/Husband to submit his details according to Para F8 of the Affidavit of asset and liability Proforma prescribed as per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Exh.41, 43 and 190 calling GST Annual Returns, Vivaran Patra 9C, tax liability and other relevant detail of his father from GST Department and different firms may kindly be allowed. C. By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, application under Exh.190 filed by petitioner calling details of father in law/ his agency/ firms which is rejected on 05.01.2024 may kindly be quashed and set aside. D. By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, Trial Court/Family Court-2 may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to lead her evidence by allowing the application under Exh.41, 42, 43 and 190 as well as to quash and set aside the order passed below Exh.271, 272 and 273. E. By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, this Hon’ble Court may please to quash and set aside the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by Family Court of Aurangabad below Exh.253 calling details of H.R. Manager of cognizant company wherein the respondent is employee of that company.”
3 913-CrWP-1504-24.odt
It is the case of the petitioner that though she has filed applications and tried to produce these documents by way of evidence, her applications were turned down by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, stating that the matters are time bound by this Court.
This Court shown inclination to allow the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to produce these documents on record in her evidence.
Learned counsel for the respondent, however, informs that evidence of the petitioner is already over, but fairly states that those documents being certified copies if exhibited he will not raise objection if the documents produced while deciding the proceedings bearing Petition A-214/2022 and E-26/2020 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. This Court finds that the petition can be disposed of by granting liberty to produce these documents on record. The Court to exhibit such documents and consider while deciding the application as the law permits.
The criminal writ petition, thus, stands disposed of.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. [KISHORE C. SANT]
JUDGE rrd
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.