What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the Family Court's procedure is summary in nature and cannot be equated to Civil Courts. The petitioner must obtain documents himself rather than requesting the court to summon them from the respondent's employer.

The petitioner sought to summon documents from the respondent's employer to verify her salary. The Family Court rejected this application, stating that the petitioner should obtain the documents himself.

What were the issues?

Whether the Family Court can be directed to summon documents from a third-party employer in a summary proceeding, or if the party seeking the documents must obtain them independently.

Mr Harender Keerthi vs Mrs Priya | Karnataka High Court 2012

Before: AND

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.37490 OF 2012 (GM-FC) BETWEEN : MR HARENDER KEERTHI S/O SATHYANARAYANA KEERTHI AGED 38 YEARS R/AT NO.216,II CROSS, COFFEE BOARD LAYOUT, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE-24 ... PETITIONER (By Sri: MANJUNATH B R & MARUTHI L, ADVS., ) AND MRS PRIYA W/O HARENDER KEETHI AGED 33 YEARS R/AT NO.127, 4TH MAIN, INCOME TAX LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-40 ... RESPONDENT ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2012 PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 16 RULE 6 OF CPC IN G & WC NO.71/2011 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY

- 2 - JUDGE AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE SAME. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R By the impugned order, the Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for summoning of the documents from HR Manager, Thales Group, Plot No.33, TVK Industrial Estate, Gindy, Chennai in order to verify as to how much salary the respondent is getting. According to the petitioner, respondent- wife is working in the aforementioned organisation. Thus, he wants the records to be summoned from the said office pertaining to service of respondent to find out to actual salary of the respondent. The procedure to be followed by the Family Court cannot be equated to the procedure that is followed by the Civil Courts while deciding the

- 3 - regular suits. The proceedings are summary in nature. If the petitioner wants any documents to be produced on his behalf, he will have to obtain necessary documents from the office, wherein respondent is working as an employee and to produce the same before the Court below. He cannot request the Court below to summon the records from the office of the respondent. 2. In view of the above, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, no interference is called for. Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to decide the main matter at an early date. Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-

MR HARENDER KEERTHI vs. MRS PRIYA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments