Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.34807 OF 2015 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: K.B.Chengappa, Aged about 45 years, Son of Lt. Col (Retd.) K.C.Bhemaiah, Residing at No.G-B. Alsa Terracs, 26, Langford Gardens, Richmond Town, Bangalore 560 025. …PETITIONER
(By Smt. Prathima Anand, Advocate)
AND:
Deepali Chengappa, Aged about 39 years, Wife of K.B.Chengappa, Residing at 3032, High Point, 45, Palace Road, Bangalore 560 001. …RESPONDENT (By Shri R. Nataraj, Advocate ) *****
This Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed on 17.7.2015 Annexure-A in M.C.No.2916/2012 on the file of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The present petition is filed questioning the order of the court below allowing an application filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereby the respondent therein has been directed to furnish income tax assessment returns from the year 2005-2006 to 2014-2015 along with the computation sheets for the income-tax returns for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15 and the passport.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the proceedings before the court below are in respect of quantum of alimony to be paid to the respondent herein. The respondent has tendered evidence and has refused to offer herself for cross-examination till date. In the meanwhile, an
3 application having been filed seeking above particulars, the court below has mechanically directed the respondent therein to produce the same. It is sought to be pointed out that the stage for perusing such documents or tendering such documents in evidence has not arrived. The petitioner has indeed produced the income tax returns for the years 2010-12 to 2014-15 and the need for the passport of the petitioner is inexplicable. The petitioner denies that the petitioner travels abroad as was sought to be alleged. It is in this background that it is pointed out that the application was ill-conceived and premature and was not warranted. It is only if the petitioner was not in a position to demonstrate that he is capable of paying exorbitant amount as alimony that the need for any further evidence of the nature sought to be elicited would arise and therefore, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order impugned.
The documents that are sought can also be obtained from other sources by the respondent even if the petitioner who
4 is reluctant to produce these documents. Therefore, leaving it open for the respondent to secure these documents through other sources, the petition stands disposed of. It would not be incumbent on the petitioner to produce these documents if the petitioner is reluctant to do so. This need not entail the court in exercising coercive measures in calling upon the petitioner to produce the same in terms of the order. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if such a course of action is adopted by the court below, it would result in the proceedings being procrastinated. Therefore, since it is always possible for the respondent to secure the documents that are required from other sources, even if the petitioner is reluctant to produce the same, there is no prejudice caused.
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE