In a significant order impacting maintenance disputes, the Rajasthan High Court has allowed a husband’s plea seeking details of his wife’s employment and income, holding that such information is essential for fair adjudication.
Background of the Case
The case titled Arvind Kumar vs. Smt. Namita arose from a maintenance proceeding pending before a Family Court in Jodhpur. The husband had moved an application under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), requesting the court to summon employment records of his wife from a private hospital where she was allegedly working.
According to the petitioner, he later discovered that his wife was employed as a nurse at Vyas Medicity and Super Speciality Hospital and was earning around ₹80,000 per month. He argued that this fact had not been disclosed before the court and was crucial for determining maintenance.
The Family Court, however, rejected his application on 5 February 2026, stating that he had not produced supporting documents.
Hearing the matter, Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu noted that Section 94 BNSS empowers courts to summon documents if they are “necessary or desirable” for proper adjudication.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, emphasizing that the relevance of documents must be assessed in light of the stage of proceedings.
Importantly, the High Court also relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, where the Supreme Court mandated full disclosure of income and assets by both parties in maintenance cases.
“The accused/non-complainant has a right to defend his case… including by compelling production of documents in possession of the other party,” the court observed.
The judge noted that the petitioner had made genuine efforts to obtain the information directly from the hospital, which refused to share details as it was a private institution. In such circumstances, approaching the court was justified.
The High Court held that the documents relating to the wife’s employment and salary were directly relevant to the maintenance proceedings and necessary for a fair outcome.
It found the Family Court’s reasoning unsustainable, observing that if the husband already had access to the documents, there would have been no need to seek the court’s assistance.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Family Court’s order dated 5 February 2026, and directed the trial court to obtain the required employment and salary records from the hospital.
Case Details
Case Title: Arvind Kumar vs. Smt. Namita
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1527/2026
Judge: Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu
Decision Date: 6 April 2026
