Supreme Court overturns High Court order on document production in family dispute: Ashi Kumar vs. Aseem Agarwal (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 16 December 2019
Citation: Ashi Kumar v. Aseem Agarwal (2019) INSC 971
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a High Court interfere with a Family Court’s order compelling a party to produce documents, especially when that party had previously undertaken to produce those documents? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a matrimonial dispute. The core issue revolved around the High Court of Delhi entertaining a writ petition against a Family Court order, which directed the respondent to produce certain documents, despite the respondent’s prior undertaking to do so. The Supreme Court bench consisted of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a matrimonial dispute where the appellant, Ashi Kumar, sought certain documents from the respondent, Aseem Agarwal. The Family Court had initially ordered the respondent to produce these documents on 28 January 2014. The respondent partially complied by producing the decree passed by the Family Court at Auckland, New Zealand, but failed to produce the judgment and divorce petition. Consequently, the appellant filed an application before the Family Court for directions to compel the respondent to produce the remaining documents. This application was allowed on 1 December 2018.

Despite the Family Court’s order, the respondent did not produce the documents. Instead, on 29 March 2019, the respondent’s counsel undertook to produce the documents on the next hearing date. However, the respondent failed to do so, citing that the documents were “in transit.” Subsequently, instead of complying with the undertaking, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi challenging the Family Court’s order of 1 December 2018.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court had initially directed the respondent to produce the necessary documents on 28 January 2014. After partial compliance, the appellant moved the Family Court, which directed the respondent to produce the remaining documents on 1 December 2018. The respondent, instead of complying, gave an undertaking through his counsel to produce the documents but failed to do so. The High Court of Delhi entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the Family Court’s order and stayed the trial. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had overlooked the respondent’s undertaking to the Family Court, which should have been the primary consideration.

Legal Framework

The judgment references Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which grants the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that this power should not be exercised to undermine the authority of lower courts, especially when an undertaking has been given. The court also considered the inherent power of the Family Court to direct the production of documents necessary for the adjudication of the dispute. There is no mention of any specific statute or rule.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the respondent was bound by the undertaking given to the Family Court to produce the documents.
• The appellant argued that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition, especially since the respondent had not been absolved of the undertaking by the Family Court.
• The appellant submitted that the documents were relevant to the case and the Family Court had rightly directed their production.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the documents sought were not relevant to the case.
• The respondent contended that the High Court was correct in entertaining the writ petition and staying the trial.
• The respondent disputed the correctness of the submission that the undertaking to the Family Court was given by his Power of Attorney.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition against the Family Court’s order directing the production of documents, especially when the respondent had given an undertaking to produce those documents.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases or books. The primary focus was on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s intervention, given the respondent’s undertaking to the Family Court.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court considered Article 227 of the Constitution of India* and held that the High Court’s power of superintendence should not be exercised to undermine the authority of lower courts, especially when an undertaking has been given. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have intervened when the respondent had given an undertaking to the Family Court to produce the documents.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the respondent’s undertaking to the Family Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the Family Court’s order, especially when the respondent had not been absolved of their undertaking. The Court’s reasoning focused on maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that undertakings given to courts are honored. The Court also noted that the High Court had not addressed the issue of the undertaking in its judgment, which was a significant oversight.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court was impressed by the respondent’s argument that the documents were not relevant. However, the Supreme Court stated that the respondent, having given an undertaking to the Family Court, was obligated to comply with it unless absolved by the Family Court. The Court stated, “The question of entertaining writ petition despite such undertaking to the Family Court cannot be countenanced.” The Court also noted that “If this position was brought to the notice of the High Court on 15.07.2019, perhaps the writ petition would not have been entertained by the High Court.” The Supreme Court also observed that “Even for that reason, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should be cautious in interfering with orders of lower courts, especially when an undertaking has been given by a party.
• Parties are bound by the undertakings given to the court, and failure to comply can have consequences.
• The relevance of documents is a matter to be decided by the trial court, and the High Court should not interfere unless there is a clear error of law.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that undertakings given to courts are honored.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition. The respondent was given liberty to approach the Family Court with an application to either be absolved of the undertaking or to produce the documents. The Family Court was directed to consider any such application on its own merits. The Supreme Court also clarified that the Family Court could proceed with the proceedings based on the record and evidence produced by the parties.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not interfere with a Family Court’s order directing the production of documents when the party has given an undertaking to produce those documents, unless the party is absolved of that undertaking by the Family Court. This case reinforces the importance of upholding undertakings given to courts and maintains the sanctity of the judicial process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ashi Kumar v. Aseem Agarwal emphasizes the importance of respecting the authority of lower courts and upholding undertakings given to the court. The High Court’s intervention was deemed inappropriate given the respondent’s prior commitment to produce the documents. This judgment serves as a reminder of the need for procedural discipline and the integrity of the judicial process.

Category

Parent Category: Family Law
Child Category: Document Production
Child Category: Undertaking to Court
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 227, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Ashi Kumar v. Aseem Agarwal case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in interfering with a Family Court’s order directing the production of documents, especially when the respondent had given an undertaking to produce those documents.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the Family Court’s order, given the respondent’s undertaking.

Q: What is an undertaking to the court?
A: An undertaking to the court is a solemn promise made by a party to the court to do something. It is a commitment that the court relies upon, and failure to comply can have consequences.

Q: What should a party do if they cannot comply with an undertaking?
A: If a party cannot comply with an undertaking, they should approach the court to be absolved of the undertaking. They cannot simply ignore it.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of respecting the authority of lower courts and upholding undertakings given to the court. It reinforces the need for procedural discipline in the judicial process.