Criminal Petition against an order allowing summons to an employer for employment documents in a Domestic Violence Act case to prove the husband's earnings for maintenance claims. The single-judge court held the order sustainable.
Petitioner's Criminal Petition to quash the trial court's order allowing summons under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO
Crl.P. No. 2222 of 2012
DATED: 02.07.2012
Between:
V. Krishna Mohan .. Petitioner/R1
And
The Project Director and another .. Respondents
O R D E R:-
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the order dated 16.02.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 198 of 2012 in D.V.C. No. 6 of 2011 by II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.M.P. No. 198 of 2012.
Crl. M.P. No. 198 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner – V. Lakshmi under Section 91 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to summon the Regional Manager or any other competent person deputed by him from M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited Suzuki to give evidence and also to produce particulars and documents of the 1st respondent, etc.
The respondents filed counter stating that the petitioner cannot seek relief under Section 91 Cr.P.C. as the case relates to the Domestic Violence Act and the purpose of summoning documents is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The trial Court, after due enquiry, allowed the petition directing the petitioner to pay the process for issuing summons to the Regional Manager or any other competent person. Being aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent has filed the present Criminal Petition.
Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the trial Court is justified?
A perusal of the petition filed under 91 Cr.P.C. is to get information regarding job details such as appointment, designation, salary, particulars of increment, etc. of the 1st respondent-husband.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein who is the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 198 of 2012, that the husband denied his employment, salary particulars and other emoluments, and therefore, the aforesaid information is just and necessary to prove his earnings, and for which, summons has to be issued to his employer.
The trial Court, while discussing the factual aspects in the impugned order, allowed the petition. In a case of this nature, it is for the petitioner-wife to prove the earnings of her husband to claim maintenance. Admittedly, D.V.C. No. 6 of 2011 was filed by the wife against the husband claiming maintenance. When the husband denied his pay particulars and other emoluments, it is for the wife to take necessary steps to prove her case regarding the earnings of her husband. By summoning those documents, no prejudice will be caused to the 1st respondent-husband. The aforesaid documents are just and very much necessary for better adjudication of the matter while deciding the main issue in D.V.C. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court allowing the petition, in my view, is quite justified and the same is sustainable.
Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J 02.07.2012
bcj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon documents regarding the husband's employment and salary for maintenance proceedings under the Domestic V
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V. Krishna Mohan
The Project Director and another
K.S. Appa Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
