Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10864 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18942 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Preeti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 14.05.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District - Bulandshahr in Case No. 1302 of 2022 (Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs. Dipanshu Gupta), under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Khurja Nagar, District - Bulandshahr, whereby the application filed by applicant for summoning the salary slip of the opposite party no.2 from his employer has been rejected. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in his written statement, the opposite party no.2 has averred that on 10.01.2023 he has suffered a road accident and resultantly he has become unable to work and he has left his job. It was submitted that a false averment has been made by the opposite party no.2 and in fact the opposite party no.2 is working at Fresrous Kabi India Pvt. Limited Pune (Maharashtra) Branch Delhi and thus, in view of these facts applicant has moved an application before the Family Court for summoning salary slip of the opposite party no.2 from said employer but the same has been rejected merely on the ground that applicant herself has to make effort to get any such document. It was submitted that the reason shown by the Family Court for rejection of the application of applicant is against law and in view of facts of the matter, the Family Court must have summoned the salary slip of the opposite party no.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon case of Smt. Priya Rani and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Application u/s 482 No. 17842 of 2018), decided on 21.05.2018. It was submitted that impugned order is not sustainable and thus, liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. In such matters, it is the duty of the parties to produce their own respective evidence and the Family Court can not compel any organization to produce any document regarding salary of an employee. It is further submitted that as per settled law, the amount of maintenance has to be determined by the Family Court in accordance with law laid down in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another AIRONLINE 2020 SC 915. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Perusal of record shows that the applicant/wife has filed the aforesaid case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2/husband. During pendency of the said case, the applicant has moved above referred application for summoning the salary slip of applicant from his employer Fresrous Kabi India Pvt. Limited Pune (Maharashtra) Branch Delhi. It appears that the said application has been rejected by the Family Court by merely observing that the applicant herself must try to obtain any such documentary proof. The proceedings under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and these provisions are measure of social legislation and same have to be construed liberally for benefit of the wife and shelter to deserted wife. In the instant matter, it appears that case of opposite party no.2 is that he has already left the job from said company Fresrous Kabi India Pvt. Limited Pune (Maharashtra) Branch Delhi, whereas case of applicant is that opposite party no.2 is working there and his salary slip must be summoned. In view of these facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, the Family Court must have summoned the salary slip of applicant from the concerned organization and it would not cause any prejudice to the opposite party no.2. The rejection of application of applicant merely on the ground that applicant herself has to try to obtain such document is not correct approach, in the attending facts of the matter. 7. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court concerned to consider and decide the aforesaid application of applicant afresh in accordance with law. 8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad