Latest Judgement

This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed are personal. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer or advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.
There is a particular moment in matrimonial litigation that every family-law lawyer recognises.
The client walks into the chamber carrying a file so thick that it appears capable of supporting a small table. The first few pages contain allegations. The next twenty contain counter-allegations. Somewhere in the middle are screenshots, salary slips, photographs of foreign holidays, WhatsApp conversations, bank statements and, invariably, one document that has been circled in red three times. The client places the file on the table and says:
“Sir, I know he is hiding his income.”
Or:
“Madam, she has not disclosed her actual assets.”
Then comes the inevitable question:
“Can we ask the Court to make them produce everything?”
That is where the lawyer has to resist the temptation to say, “Yes, absolutely.”
Because matrimonial litigation is not an archaeological expedition. A party cannot simply ask the Court to order the other spouse to open every drawer, every bank account, every email account and every cupboard in the hope that something interesting will eventually emerge. But there is another equally important principle.
A spouse who has placed his or her financial life before the Court by way of an affidavit cannot necessarily hide behind that affidavit when the other side points out a specific contradiction. That is where interrogatories and discovery of documents under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 become important. And, in maintenance litigation, the Supreme Court has expressly recognised this procedural route.

1. THE STARTING POINT: DISCLOSURE IS NOT THE END OF THE STORY
The modern law of maintenance litigation has moved considerably away from the old-fashioned contest in which one spouse says, “I have no income,” the other says, “He earns lakhs,” and the Court is expected to determine the truth by looking at two affidavits and the expressions on the faces of the parties.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, fundamentally strengthened the disclosure process by requiring parties in maintenance proceedings to file affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities. But the Supreme Court went one step further. It anticipated what lawyers regularly encounter in Family Courts: an affidavit may disclose information, but it may also leave questions unanswered. The Court therefore directed that where there is a dispute concerning the declaration made in the affidavit of disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek the Court’s permission to serve interrogatories and seek production of relevant documents under Order XI CPC. That sentence is deceptively simple. It has considerable practical importance. It means that the affidavit of disclosure is not necessarily the final word on a spouse’s financial position. It is the beginning of a process of financial transparency.

2. WHAT EXACTLY IS AN INTERROGATORY?
In ordinary language, an interrogatory is a formal question. In litigation, however, it is more than simply asking the opposite party a question. Order XI Rule 1 CPC permits a plaintiff or defendant, with the leave of the Court, to deliver written interrogatories for the examination of the opposite party. The qualification is important. The lawyer cannot simply prepare fifty questions on a Sunday afternoon, serve them on the opposite spouse on Monday morning and declare that discovery has begun. The Court’s permission matters. The interrogatories must also relate to matters in question in the proceedings. Questions having no connection with the dispute are treated as irrelevant, even if the information might conceivably be useful during oral cross-examination. That distinction is critical. An interrogatory is not a substitute for curiosity. It is a procedural tool directed towards establishing matters genuinely relevant to the litigation.

3. WHY THE COURT’S LEAVE IS IMPORTANT
There is a reason the CPC does not permit unlimited interrogatories as a matter of course. Imagine a maintenance proceeding in which the wife alleges that the husband earns ₹5 lakh per month. The husband files an affidavit declaring an income of ₹1.5 lakh. The wife discovers from a disclosed document that the husband is a director in a company. She then asks:
i. What remuneration do you receive from the company?
ii. Do you receive dividends?
iii. Do you hold shares in the company?
iv. Have you received any director’s remuneration during the relevant financial year?
v. Are there any other sources of income?
These questions have an obvious connection with the dispute.
Now imagine a different set of questions:
i. “What was the colour of your first car?”
ii. “Which restaurant did you visit on your birthday in 2018?”
iii. “Who attended your college reunion?”
Those questions may be fascinating. They may even be excellent conversation starters. They are not necessarily interrogatories relevant to determining maintenance. The Court’s permission therefore operates as a filter. It protects the legitimate right of one spouse to obtain material information while preventing matrimonial litigation from becoming an unrestricted exercise in personal investigation.

4. ORDER XI IS NOT A LICENSE FOR A FISHING EXPEDITION
This is perhaps the most important practical limitation. Courts do not ordinarily permit a party to say:
“I suspect there is something hidden somewhere. Please order production of everything.”
Discovery must have a rational relationship with the matters in controversy. The Bombay High Court has emphasised that discovery under Order XI must be connected with the issues in dispute and that the Court must apply its mind to whether the documents sought are necessary for fair and effective adjudication. The more recent Delhi High Court decision in Ms. Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Ms. Smita Shrivastava & Anr., decided on 29 August 2025, is particularly instructive in the matrimonial context.
The Court considered objections that certain requests for production of documents amounted to a “fishing and roving inquiry”. It reaffirmed that Order XI Rule 14 empowers the Court to direct production of documents in the possession or power of a party when those documents relate to a matter in question. At the same time, the Court recognised that production can be controlled through appropriate limitations and safeguards, including supervised inspection and sealed-cover procedures where necessary. That is a sensible middle path. The Court need not choose between two extremes i.e. Complete secrecy on one side and complete exposure on the other. The law permits targeted disclosure.

5. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS: THE SECOND WEAPON
Interrogatories ask questions.
Order XI also provides a mechanism for obtaining documents.
Order XI Rule 12 deals with discovery of documents.
Order XI Rule 14 concerns production of documents.
The distinction is worth understanding. Suppose the husband says:
“I earn ₹1,20,000 per month.”
The wife has reason to believe that he also earns substantial income from a business. A carefully drafted application may seek relevant documents such as:
i. Income-tax returns;
ii. Form 16;
iii. Salary slips;
iv. Bank statements for an appropriate period;
v. Documents concerning shareholding;
vi. Partnership or business records;
vii. Dividend statements;
viii. Relevant loan documents;
ix. Documents relating to substantial investments; or
x. Other material directly bearing upon income, assets or liabilities.
The application should explain why each category matters. A good application does not merely attach a shopping list. It tells the Court the story connecting the document to the issue. For example:
“Document X is relevant because the respondent has disclosed employment income but has not disclosed the remuneration received from his directorship in Company Y.”
That is far stronger than:
“Produce all company documents.”
One is targeted discovery. The other sounds like a fishing net.

6. THE SUPREME COURT’S MOST IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION
The real significance of Rajnesh v. Neha lies not merely in the prescribed affidavit format. It lies in the recognition that financial information in matrimonial litigation is frequently asymmetric. One spouse may know his or her own salary, investments, business interests and liabilities intimately. The other spouse may know almost nothing about them. The Supreme Court expressly recognised this difficulty and observed that the income, assets and liabilities of a spouse may be within that spouse’s personal knowledge. It also indicated that the Court may, where necessary, invoke the principles underlying Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This is particularly significant in maintenance proceedings. A spouse cannot reasonably be expected to prove with mathematical precision an income that is deliberately kept outside his or her knowledge. The law therefore attempts to correct the information imbalance. But it does so through procedure—not suspicion.

7. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE INTERROGATORIES ARE SERVED?
This is where lawyers sometimes get impatient. The interrogatories are answered.
The answer says:
“I do not know.”
Or:
“I do not possess the document.”
Or:
“The question is irrelevant.”
Or, the most popular answer in matrimonial litigation:
“I deny the contents.”
At that point, the matter does not automatically end. Order XI contains its own procedural mechanism for dealing with answers that are incomplete or objections that are raised.
The Bombay High Court’s decision in Vikas @ Vicky Banwarilal Saraf v. Megha Vikas @ Vicky Saraf, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 58, is an important reminder of this procedural discipline. The case arose from maintenance proceedings under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Interrogatories had been served under Order XI Rules 1 and 12. The husband responded by affidavit. The trial Court, however, independently concluded that the answers were insufficient and directed further information. The Bombay High Court set that order aside. Justice A.S. Chandurkar explained that under the scheme of Order XI, if a party considers an answer insufficient, the appropriate procedural steps must be taken. The Court should not, on its own, bypass that mechanism and declare an answer inadequate without the necessary procedural foundation. There is an important lesson here. Even a party seeking disclosure must follow the rules governing disclosure. The procedural weapon is powerful. But it is not self-operating.

8. THE FAMILY COURT IS NOT A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR
There is sometimes a misconception that because Family Courts are intended to adopt a less formal and more conciliatory approach, ordinary procedural safeguards can simply be ignored. That is dangerous. The Family Courts Act gives Family Courts considerable flexibility in procedure. But flexibility is not the same thing as procedural anarchy. The purpose of discovery is to assist the Court in deciding the real controversy. It is not to embarrass the other spouse. It is not to obtain confidential material merely because it might be interesting. And it is certainly not to convert litigation into surveillance. This becomes particularly important when parties seek sensitive documents such as bank records, medical material, private communications, business information or third-party information. A Court may therefore tailor the disclosure. It may limit the period. It may limit the categories of documents. It may permit inspection rather than unrestricted copying. It may direct production in a sealed cover. The recent Delhi High Court approach in Tanvi Chaturvedi demonstrates precisely this idea of proportionality: relevant material may be produced while appropriate safeguards are imposed to prevent misuse.

9. HOW SHOULD A LAWYER DRAFT THE APPLICATION?
In practice, the difference between an application that succeeds and one that is dismissed often lies in the drafting. The application should answer four questions.
1. What has the opposite party said?
Identify the specific statement in the affidavit, pleading or evidence.
2. Why is that statement doubtful or incomplete?
Point to the contradiction.
Do not merely say, “The respondent is hiding income.”
Explain why.
3. What specific information or document is required?
Identify it precisely.
4. How will that information assist the Court?
Connect the request to the issue of maintenance, litigation expenses, assets, liabilities, earning capacity or another matter actually in dispute.
This makes the application judicially manageable.
The Court should be able to read it and understand, within minutes, why the requested information matters.

10. A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
Consider a husband who files an affidavit stating i.e. “My monthly income is ₹1,50,000.”
The wife produces a document showing that he is a director of a private company. She then seeks leave to serve interrogatories asking:
Question 1: Whether the husband is a director of the company.
Question 2: Whether he receives remuneration, sitting fees, commission, dividend or any other monetary benefit from the company.
Question 3: If so, the amount received during the relevant financial year.
She simultaneously seeks production of relevant documents evidencing that remuneration or income. This is a focused application. Now compare it with:
“Produce all documents concerning every company, partnership, investment, bank account and financial transaction undertaken by you, your parents, siblings, relatives and friends for the last ten years.”
The second request may immediately invite the judicial equivalent of a raised eyebrow.
The lesson is simple: The stronger the allegation, the more precise the discovery should be.

11. CAN INTERROGATORIES BE USED IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS?
Yes, subject of course to the procedural framework applicable to the particular proceeding and the Court’s power to grant leave. The importance of Rajnesh v. Neha is that it expressly recognises the mechanism in the context of maintenance disputes. But lawyers should avoid treating that direction as a universal order for automatic disclosure of every conceivable document in every matrimonial proceeding. The application must still satisfy the basic requirements of relevance, necessity and proportionality. In a divorce case, for example, the requested document should bear a genuine connection with an issue arising in the pleadings. In a maintenance dispute, the connection may be income, assets, expenditure or liabilities. In a dispute concerning concealment of financial resources, the relevance may be even more direct. The governing question should always remain: What issue before this Court does this document or answer help decide?

12. THE COURT’S POWER IS A SAFEGUARD—NOT AN OBSTACLE
Some lawyers view the requirement of seeking leave as an unnecessary procedural hurdle. I respectfully disagree. The requirement of leave is valuable precisely because matrimonial litigation can become intensely personal. A disappointed spouse may genuinely believe that the other party is concealing something. Sometimes that belief is correct. Sometimes it is not. The Court’s permission provides the necessary institutional filter. It allows the Judge to distinguish between: “I have a specific reason to believe this document is relevant” and “I have a feeling that there may be something somewhere.” The first is litigation. The second is speculation. The rule of law requires the former.

13. THE REAL PURPOSE: LEVELING THE INFORMATION FIELD
Maintenance litigation is fundamentally concerned with fairness. A spouse seeking maintenance cannot be expected to know the contents of every bank account, investment portfolio, business arrangement or remuneration structure maintained by the other spouse. Conversely, a spouse facing a maintenance claim is entitled to ensure that the claim is based upon accurate information rather than assumption. That is why disclosure works both ways. It protects the claimant from concealed income. It protects the respondent from exaggerated claims. It assists the Court in determining the amount that is actually just. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha expressly connected the disclosure process with the need for a fair determination of maintenance and recognised the Court’s ability to seek additional information where the affidavit does not resolve the dispute. That is not merely procedural housekeeping. It goes to the integrity of the adjudication itself.

14. WHAT LAWYERS SHOULD NOT DO
There are a few practical traps worth avoiding. Do not ask for everything. The Court is unlikely to reward an application that resembles a general audit. Do not use interrogatories as disguised cross-examination. The purpose is discovery of relevant information, not to conduct the entire trial on paper. Do not seek documents merely because they may contain something useful. Show the Court why the document is relevant. Do not ignore the procedural requirements after answers are received. If an answer is insufficient, use the mechanism provided by Order XI. And finally: Do not confuse suspicion with evidence. A Family Court hears enough allegations in a week to know that “I know he is hiding something” is not, by itself, a legal proposition.

15. A SMALL PROCEDURAL DEVICE WITH A LARGE CONSEQUENCE
There is something elegant about the law of interrogatories. It allows a litigant to say: “I cannot prove this fact because the relevant information is with the other side. I am not asking the Court to believe me merely because I say so. I am asking for a procedural opportunity to test the assertion.” That is the difference between accusation and adjudication. The Court remains the decision-maker. The parties provide the material. And discovery helps ensure that one party’s exclusive possession of information does not become an unfair litigation advantage. In matrimonial proceedings, where financial disclosure can determine whether a spouse receives ₹20,000 or ₹2 lakh, that distinction can have consequences far beyond the paperwork.

16. THE LAST WORD SHOULD BELONG TO THE RULE OF LAW
Back in the chamber, when the client asks, “Can we make them produce the documents?”, the answer should not be an immediate yes or no. The better answer is:
“We first have to show the Court why those documents matter.”
That sentence captures the philosophy behind Order XI. The law does not give a litigant unlimited access to the private life of the opposing party. Nor does it permit a litigant to win simply because the crucial information happens to be locked inside the other party’s financial cupboard. Instead, it creates a controlled mechanism.
i. Ask the right question.
ii. Identify the relevant document.
iii. Show its connection with the dispute.
iv. Obtain the Court’s leave.
v. Follow the procedure.
vi. And let the Court decide what deserves to be produced.
In matrimonial litigation, where emotions often arrive in Court before evidence does, that discipline is particularly valuable. After all, justice is not the process of discovering everything about everybody. It is the process of discovering what matters. And sometimes, the most important question in a maintenance case is not what the other spouse has said. It is what the other spouse can be required, lawfully and fairly, to prove.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.