Wife can summon bank officials to uncover husband's real income: Delhi HC
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in a detailed 11-page judgment, allowed a woman's plea under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), setting aside the family court's earlier order that had denied her this right.
'Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic approach,' the court observed. Justice Dudeja emphasized that the evidence and witnesses the wife sought were directly relevant to the determination of maintenance and not collateral or extraneous.
He criticised the family court for taking a 'hyper-technical view' and stated that it should have interpreted its powers under Section 311 CrPC in a more purposive manner.
The court noted a common pattern in matrimonial disputes, where husbands attempt to hide their actual earnings or transfer assets to evade maintenance obligations. 'It is not uncommon that when there are matrimonial differences, husbands tend to suppress their real income and resort to transferring their assets to avoid payment of legitimate dues to their wives,' the judge remarked.
The case involved a couple married on February 16, 2012. The wife alleged that she faced domestic violence and dowry harassment post-marriage and that the husband, along with his family, deserted her, locking the matrimonial home and retaining her stridhan, jewellery, and cash.
She sought to summon witnesses to authenticate documents related to a Shakti Nagar property, alleging that the husband had concealed financial information, including the sale of a Noida property and his appointment as a CFO in 2014.
In response, the husband argued that the witnesses were not relevant and accused the wife of delaying the proceedings by filing multiple applications. He also claimed that she had approached the court with unclean hands.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
7 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Delhi HC asks Yasin Malik to respond to NIA's plea for death penalty
The Delhi High Court has asked Yasin Malik to respond to the National Investigation Agency's request for the death penalty. This relates to a terror funding case. The court has given Malik four weeks to respond. The hearing is scheduled for November 10. Malik is currently serving a life sentence in Tihar jail. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Delhi High Court on Monday sought separatist leader Yasin Malik 's response on a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency seeking death penalty for him in a terror funding case A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur granted four weeks to Malik to file his response to the NIA's court posted the hearing for November who previously sought to argue in-person against NIA's plea seeking the enhancement, was supposed to appear virtually from jail but wasn't Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chief (JKLF) is lodged in Tihar jail where he is serving a life term in the high court noted that neither Malik was produced virtually in the proceedings from jail nor he filed his reply to NIA's plea in pursuance to the court's August 9, 2024 August 9, Malik was directed to be produced virtually and not physically due to security Monday, the bench directed the jail authorities to produce him virtually on November last year turned down the court's suggestion to appoint a lawyer on his behalf and said he wished to argue the case May 29, 2023, the high court issued notice to Malik on the NIA's plea seeking death jail authorities filed an application seeking permission for his virtual appearance on grounds that he was a "very high-risk prisoner" and it was imperative to not physically produce him in court to maintain public order and request was allowed by the high May 24, 2022, a trial court sentenced Malik to life imprisonment after holding him guilty for offences under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and had pleaded guilty to the charges, including those under the UAPA, and was convicted and sentenced to life against the sentence, the NIA emphasised that a terrorist cannot be sentenced life term only because he has pleaded guilty and chosen not to go through seeking enhancement of the sentence to death penalty, the NIA said if such dreaded terrorists are not given capital punishment on account of pleading guilty, there would be complete erosion of the sentencing policy and terrorists would have a way out to avoid capital trial court, which rejected the NIA's plea for death penalty, had said the crimes committed by Malik struck at the "heart of the idea of India" and were intended to forcefully secede Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India. PTI
The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Google vs CCI: What the Android antitrust case means for India's digital ecosystem
Story so far: On August 8, 2025, the Supreme Court admitted an appeal filed by Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, against a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The tribunal had earlier upheld, at least in part, the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) findings that Google had abused its dominant position in the Android ecosystem to indulge in anti-competitive practices. Alongside Google's appeal, the Court also admitted related petitions from the CCI itself and the Alliance Digital India Foundation (ADIF), which is a coalition of Indian startups critical of Big Tech dominance. A bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha has listed the matter for a detailed hearing in November. What has the CCI accused Google of? The CCI's investigation into Google began in 2020, sparked by complaints from app developers and industry groups who alleged that Google was using its market dominance in Android to push its own services and restrict fair competition. By 2022, the Commission concluded that Google had engaged in multiple anti-competitive practices. Chief among them was the mandatory use of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for in-app purchases on the Play Store. This meant that developers had to use Google's payment processing system, paying a commission that typically ranged between 15% and 30%, rather than integrating their own billing solutions. The regulator also found that Google exempted its own app YouTube from these billing requirements, giving them a cost advantage over competing services. This, the CCI argued, distorted the level-playing field and harmed both rival developers and consumers. In addition, the CCI highlighted that the Android licensing model required smartphone makers to pre-install Google's suite of apps — Search, Chrome, YouTube, and others — as a condition for access to the Google Play Store. According to the Commission, this bundling restricted consumer choice and suppressed innovation from alternative app providers. Based on these findings, the CCI imposed a fine of ₹936.44 crore on Google and issued a set of behavioural remedies, including directives to decouple Google's payment system from Play Store access, ensure transparency in billing data, and refrain from using such data to advantage its own services. What is Google's defence? Google rejected the CCI's conclusions, arguing that its practices were designed to enhance user experience, maintain security, and enable a sustainable business model for the Android ecosystem. The company maintained that Android is an open-source operating system, available for free to device manufacturers, and that OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) are not obligated to install Google's proprietary apps if they choose to license the core Android platform without Play Store access. It argued that pre-installing a set of Google apps was a matter of efficiency and user convenience, and did not prevent users from downloading competing apps. On the billing side, Google claimed that GPBS ensured safe and reliable transactions for users, helping to prevent fraud and reduce payment failures. The commission fees, it said, were consistent with industry standards and provided developers access to Google's global infrastructure, distribution reach, and regular security updates. Google also argued that exempting certain in-house services from GPBS was not anti-competitive but a recognition of differences in their business models. It pointed out that many leading Indian apps like PhonePe, Paytm, and Hotstar had grown successfully on Android, which shows that the market remained vibrant and competitive. What was the NCLAT's judgment? In March, the NCLAT delivered its ruling on Google's appeal against the CCI's 2022 order. The tribunal upheld several of the CCI's findings, agreeing that Google's mandatory billing policy and bundling of apps amounted to abuse of dominance. However, it reduced the financial penalty from ₹936.44 crore to ₹216.69 crore, reasoning that the original amount was disproportionate to the conduct in question. The NCLAT also struck down some of the CCI's behavioural directions, holding that certain remedies were either over-broad or lacked sufficient evidentiary basis. In May 2025, following a review petition, the tribunal reinstated two key directions that Google must be transparent about its billing data policies, and that it must not use such data to gain a competitive advantage for its own apps and services. This partial victory left all parties dissatisfied. Google sought a complete reversal of the findings, the CCI wanted its original penalties and remedies restored in full, and ADIF argued that the tribunal had gone too easy on Google. What's at stake now? The case raises fundamental questions about how much control a dominant platform like Android should have over the devices and services it supports, and to what extent regulators can intervene in the name of competition. For consumers, a ruling in favour of the CCI could mean more choice and potentially lower prices. If developers can bypass GPBS and use cheaper payment systems, they might pass on some of the savings to users. Greater transparency and restrictions on data use could also enhance privacy and fairness in app rankings and recommendations. However, industry observers warn that loosening Google's control could lead to more fragmentation in Android, with different devices offering inconsistent user experiences. For smartphone makers, the verdict could influence licensing costs and product flexibility. If the Supreme Court upholds the CCI's original remedies, OEMs might gain more leeway to pre-install competing services or experiment with alternative Android versions without losing access to the Play Store. This could be especially significant for smaller Indian brands that have struggled to differentiate themselves in a Google-centric ecosystem. For Indian startups and app developers, the case represents an opportunity to level the playing field against a global giant. ADIF has argued that Google's policies not only limit payment options but also give it an undue edge in promoting its own apps. A strong pro-CCI ruling could give local companies better bargaining power and distribution access. For Google, the stakes go beyond India. The country is one of its largest markets by user base, and an adverse ruling here could trigger similar regulatory demands in other jurisdictions. It could also force Google to reconsider its global Android business model, especially if courts require it to unbundle services or open its billing systems. What's the road ahead? The Supreme Court's hearings in November will likely examine both the legal interpretation of 'abuse of dominance' under Indian competition law and the economic realities of platform markets. Whatever the outcome, the decision will set an important precedent for how India balances innovation, consumer protection, and market fairness in the digital era. With Android powering over 95% of smartphones in the country, the Court's ruling will directly influence how hundreds of millions of Indians access apps, make payments, and use mobile services in the years to come. If the case ends with strong enforcement of the CCI's original directions, India could emerge as a leading example of robust digital market regulation outside the EU. On the other hand, if the Court sides with Google, it will reaffirm the status quo.
The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court orders commencement of trial
The Madras High Court on Monday (August 11, 2025) ordered the commencement of trial in a 10-year-old defamation suit filed by former Indian cricket team captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni seeking ₹100 crore in damages from Zee Media Corporation, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer G. Sampath Kumar, and News Nation Network for having dragged his name in to the IPL betting scam. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan also appointed an advocate commissioner to record the evidence of Mr. Dhoni on mutually convenient premises, to all the parties involved and their counsel, in Chennai. The advocate commissioner was appointed as Mr. Dhoni's personal appearance at the High Court, for the examination in chief as well as cross-examination by the defendants, might lead to chaos due to him being a celebrity. The orders were passed after senior counsel P.R. Raman submitted an affidavit sworn by Mr. Dhoni expressing his intent to proceed with the trial in the defamation suit pending since 2014. The cricketer said that he would be available for examination as well as cross-examination between October 20, 2025, and December 10, 2025, and that the venue and specific dates could be fixed on the basis of mutual convenience. 'The above request is made with the intent to avoid any undue delay (in disposal of the suit pending in the High Court for over a decade) and to support the fair, just, and speedy adjudication of the suit. I state that I shall extend my full co-operation with the Advocate Commissioner and comply with all directions issued by this honourable court regarding the trial and the recording of evidence,' the affidavit read. When Mr. Raman, assisted by advocate Sandesh Saravanan, requested the court to consider appointing a retired district judge as an advocate commissioner for recording evidence, Justice Karthikeyan said that he would pick a name from a list maintained by the High Court. He also stated that the defamation suit would be listed for hearing before the court after the completion of recording of evidence in full. The trial in the suit had got delayed for over 10 years because of multiple applications taken out by the parties seeking one relief or another. In December 2023, a Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar (since retired) and Sunder Mohan had convicted the retired IPS officer of criminal contempt of court and sentenced him to 15 days of simple imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court stayed the punishment in 2024. Mr. Dhoni had filed the contempt plea against the retired IPS officer for having made contumacious remarks against the Supreme Court as well as the High Court while defending the defamation suit. In July 2022, the then Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram had granted permission to the cricketer to proceed with the contempt plea, after being satisfied that the remarks made by Mr. Kumar, in his written statement to the suit, amounted to scandalising court proceedings.
