Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Producing Salary Slip In Maintenance Proceedings Cannot Be Termed As Violation Of Privacy And Article 20: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mridul Gupta ,
  05 May 2022       Share Bookmark

Court :
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brief :
Where the financial status of the parties was one of the relevant considerations for adjudicating the suit, then asking the husband to produce his salary slip could not be termed as a violation of his privacy. Further, the wife could not be held to be a stranger and was entitled to know the salary of her husband. Since the respondent had refused to place his salary slip on record, therefore, it was held that the Court might draw an adverse inference against the respondent.
Citation :
CRR No.3519/2018
  • COURT: The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench)
  • CITATION: CRR No.3519/2018
  • CAUSE TITLE: Rashi Gupta &Ors. v. Gaurav Gupta
  • DATE OF ORDER:22 April 2022
  • JUDGE(S): The Hon’ble Justice Mr. G. S. Ahluwalia

PARTIES

  • Applicant(s): Rashi Gupta & Ors.
  • Respondent: Gaurav Gupta

SUBJECT

The respondent had not filed the salary slip on the ground that compelling the husband to file the salary slip in the maintenance proceedings would be contrary to the protection given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

The Constitution of India, 1950

Article 20- Protection in respect of conviction for offences.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Article 21- Protection of life and personal liberty.

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

OVERVIEW

  • In 2019, the following order was passed by the Family Court, Gwalior
  • Counsel for the respondent sought time to file a It was opposed by the petitioner by submitting that respondent was making attempts to delay the matter.
  • The Court ordered the respondent to give Rs. 18,000/- in total per month to the petitioners as maintenance.
  • The respondent was directed to file a reply within two weeks, else matter should be heard without reply. It was further expected that the respondent shall submit the appropriate documents in support of his submission regarding the salary structure of respondent. It was also expected that the respondent shall pay a regular maintenance amount to his wife and children (the petitioners).
  • In response to the order, the respondent filed his reply but did not file the salary slip.

ISSUE

Whether producing salary slips in maintenance proceedings be violative of fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

  • It was submitted that compelling the respondent to disclose his income was violative of his right to privacy, embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
  • The respondent had also taken the defence of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and submitted that no one can be compelled to give evidence against himself.

JUDGMENT ANALYSIS

  • InShamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan [(2015) 5 SCC 705], the Supreme Courtheld that a wife was entitled to enjoying the same status, that she enjoyed in her matrimonial house.
  • InRajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324], the Supreme Court held that while adjudicating the quantum of maintenance, the status of the parties was also one of the important considerations.
  • The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, [AIR 1968 Del 174]held that the onus was on the husband to establish with necessary material that there were sufficient grounds to show his inability to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons that are not in his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference could be drawn by the court.
  • Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides that no person/accused of any offence shall be compelled to witness against him. Admittedly, the respondent was not an accused sothere was no question of conviction of the respondent. Therefore, the protection granted under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India did not apply to the respondent.

CONCLUSION

Where the financial status of the parties was one of the relevant considerations for adjudicating the suit, then asking the husband to produce his salary slip could not be termed as a violation of his privacy. Further, the wife could not be held to be a stranger and was entitled to know the salary of her husband. Since the respondent had refused to place his salary slip on record, therefore, it was held that the Court might draw an adverse inference against the respondent.

As prayed by the counsel for the applicants, the case was listed in the week commencing 20/06/2022 for the final hearing.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgment

 
"Loved reading this piece by Mridul Gupta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 544




Comments