Production of docs necessary before disposal of sec 24 app

The Applicant (wife) side is correct as Law on S. 24 HMA or for that matter any Law which grants Applicant Interim Maintenance is / are summary procedure.

Illustration:
1. Today as per your brief you are proposing putting a condition by way of Application seeking direction of Court to direct Applicant to produce income – liabilities documents. Tomorrow say some other respondent (husband) will say in an Bigamy case that I will seek direction of Court to produce proof first then pass IM and on next day similarly in case of say illegitimate child some other respondent (husband) will seek direction of Court to direct wife to undergo first DNA test ref.: Amarjit Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh And Anr. [2003 (1) AWC 344 SC] then maintenance and then for simple summary proceedings such as S. 24 HMa the list will be like proper trial not summary which is bad in eyes of Law.

2. Same was interpretation in prudent legal circles in that infamous case of D HC Single Bench Order to all trial Courts in Delhi to direct both parties to produce income – liabilities documents right before marriage till date of submission that also by way of Affidavit (We placed sometime back entire text as well as content of Affidavit herein LCI ref. to it). In that case the original party did not produce documents respectively at all as directed by Single Bench of D HC and then followed MCD route that also before trail Court but the Single Bench direction stayed till date for all trial courts in Delhi to follow!! I find this bad in eyes of Law specially for Summary proceedings such as S. 24 HMA or S. 125 CrPC (interim) or for that matter DV Act or HAMA.

3. Flip above two diverse illustrations which are import from decisions of Apex Court not ours, say day after tomorrow some smart husband will plead before trial Court to send wife for 15 days on trial period basis to matrimonial home and if she is not able to stay again in matrimonial home then pay Interim maintenance .........etc. etc. ! I mean why not this type of 'condition' plea do not all respondent say allegations are false and wrong to avoid / delay S. 24 HMA or for that matter all Interim maintenance under Act / Codes???

4. Tomorrow say wife brings civil cruelty suit before FC and annexes some MLC so do we expect respondent (husband) to sumit an Application for her to produce witness / evidences then pass Interim Maint. under S. 24 HMA? I say such "condition(s)" cannot sustain as the language of the Law if interpreted will not allow it and the list (civil / quasi civil cases)  illustration in a summary proceedings of referenced natures then are endless.

5. Day after tomorrow in a case of S. 24 HMA seeking interim maintenance for child by a wife, the respondent can also put "condition" that send child to me for 1 month then maintenance?

So such bald pleas "condition(s)" limits by say smart husbands specially before court of law are bad in eyes of Law.

Explanation:-
1. Imposition of a condition which will operate as a defeasance clause to deprive the very maintenance order to be paid particularly of the nature imposed in the brief is not warranted.

2. ref.: Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr., [JT 1999 (8) SC 329] (I am aware it is for S. 125 CrPC but common jointer is interim maintenance in your brief with this reference citation) contended that in the matter of grant of maintenance, there is no impediment for the court to impose a condition of the nature and in case of refusal to cooperate make the defaulting party suffer consequences thereof.

3. Coming now to the nature of the condition proposed as in your brief, I say no such condition could be imposed to compel Applicant (wife) to produce document since Respondent (husband) has produced it. If FC Ld. Judge orders so then it is beyond comprehension as to how the court could have thought of imposing an extraneous condition with a default clause which is likely to defeat the very claim as the relevant statutory consideration in reference to your brief, being only that either of the party OR who was the petitioner in the application under S. 24 of the Act, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support for the grant of interim maintenance the same has to be granted and the discretion thereafter left with the court.

4. In our view above is only with reference to reasonableness of the amount that could be awarded and not to impose any condition which has self-defeating consequence.

All above are views of Hon'ble SC on ''condition(s)” with reference to context, hence, some months back while commenting on now infamous Judgment of D HC I said if any activist wants then this D HC judgment can be quashed by SC based on above illustrations r/w explanations further read with there are several Judgments of Apex Court where husband(s) such 'condition(s)' plea were struck off.