CO/1689/2026 of AMITAVA BOSE Vs SUSMITA BOSE NEE DAS on 21 September 2026

M/L- 142 21/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 1689 of 2026

Amitava Bose Vs. Susmita Bose nee Das & Ors.

Mr. Ratul Das Ms. Sanjani Das Mr. Arya Bhattacharyya Ms. Zainab Kalnal ….for the petitioner

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the husband and is directed against an order dated February 6, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court at Alipore in Misc. Case No.21 of 2013. After the evidence in the miscellaneous case has been concluded the case and was fixed for argument, the petitioner filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner prayed for an order summoning the authorised official from LIC and concerned mutual fund companies along with relevant income and commission records of the petitioner and to permit the petitioner to examine the witness in the interest of justice. It is for the petitioner to produce the materials to prove his income. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon paragraph 72.7(g) of the decision in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr., reported at (2021) 2 SCC 324 in support of his contention that if there is a change in the financial status of the party or there is a change of the relevant circumstances of if some new information comes to light the party may submit an amended supplementary affidavit which would be considered by the court at the time of final determination. There is no quarrel to the aforesaid proposition of law. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of the materials in support of the change of the relevant circumstances or change of his financial status. At the fag end of the trial of the miscellaneous case which is pending since 2013 petitioner sought to summon the LIC officials and other authorities to bring the documents in support of the income of the petitioner. It was open for the petitioner to collect materials in support of his income at the appropriate stage and produce the same. The learned trial judge, in the considered view of this Court was right in not allowing such prayer at the stage of argument. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court at Alipore is requested to dispose of the Misc. Case No.21 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. With the above observations, CO 1689 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)