Anuja W/O Ajinkya Ganechari vs. Ajinkya Nagnath Ganechari

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, specifically requesting permission to submit documents related to GST Annual Returns, Vivaran Patra 9C, tax liability, and other details of the respondent (her husband) and his father's firms. The petitioner also aimed to obtain details of the respondent's employer, Cognizant, and his father-in-law's business dealings. The Family Court had rejected her applications to produce these documents as evidence, citing time constraints imposed by the High Court. The petitioner argued that these documents were crucial for deciding the proceedings.

Held

The High Court, while acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the rejection of her applications to lead evidence, found a practical way to resolve the matter. The Court noted that the petitioner's evidence had concluded. However, the respondent's counsel offered a concession: if the documents sought by the petitioner were certified copies and were exhibited, he would not object to their consideration. The Court accepted this submission and decided to dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to produce these documents on record. The Family Court was directed to exhibit such documents and consider them while deciding the pending applications, as permitted by law. The Court did not explicitly rule on the correctness of the Family Court's earlier rejections but facilitated the inclusion of the documents. The issue of the order rejecting details of the respondent's employer was implicitly addressed by the general liberty granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's applications (Exh. 41, 42, 43, and 190) to lead evidence, specifically concerning GST-related documents and details of the respondent and his father's firms, thereby violating her right to present crucial evidence? (Question of law and fact, potentially touching upon principles of natural justice and evidence law). 2. Whether the Family Court's order dated 15.03.2024 (Exh. 253) rejecting the petitioner's request for details of the respondent's employer (Cognizant) was justified? (Question of law and fact). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the Family Court wrongly rejected her applications to produce vital documents, including GST returns and financial details of the respondent and his father's firms, which were essential for the proper adjudication of the case. She argued that the Family Court's reliance on time constraints imposed by the High Court was an improper ground for rejecting her evidence. She also sought to quash orders rejecting her applications to call for details of her father-in-law's business and the respondent's employer. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records that the learned counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the petitioner's evidence was already over. However, the counsel fairly stated that if the documents were certified copies and exhibited, he would not raise an objection during the decision-making process of pending proceedings (Petition A-214/2022 and E-26/2020).