Allowed

Mrs.P.Vijitha, Hyderabad and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC23 Jun 2022CRLRC/1776/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a maintenance dispute, the High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by the petitioners to set aside the trial court's order dismissing an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The High Court directed the summons of the respondent's PAN cards and income tax returns to ascertain his real income.

What did the court decide?

Crl.MP.No.35 of 2016 allowed; Trial Court directed to summon PAN cards and income tax returns for last seven years to ascertain respondent's real income.

Mrs.P.Vijitha, Hyderabad and Anr., Vs the State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

rN rHE H|GH oF TELANGANA

¶2

"or"lf?$Jll*=o?rfrE

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDOY

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1776 OF 2016

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr P C aggrieved by the Order dated .24.05.2016 passed in Crl.1,4P.No.35 of 20'16 on the file of the Court of the XV Additional District Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, at Miyapur.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mrs.P.Vijitha, W/o. Mr.P. Sasi Kumar Reddy, Occ : Housewife, R/o. C/o Sri D. Krishna Reddy, Flat No.106, Rishi Towers, Bhagya nagar colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy Dislrict, Hyderabad - 72.

¶10

Master. R. Bhanu Rishikesh Reddy, S/o. Mr.P. Sasi Kumar Reddy, Aged: about 07 years, (Minor)^(Petitioner No.2 is a minor, represented by his mother i.e., petitioner No.'l R/o. C/o. Sri. D. Krishna Reddy, Flat No.106, Rishi Towers, Bhagya Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad - 72.

¶11

...Petitioners/Petitioners

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

2 Puchalapalli Sasi Kumar Reddy, (Husband of Petitioner No.1), S/o. Sri. P. Prabhakar Reddy, Occ : Business, Temp FVo.C/o. Smt. A. Usha, Wo. Sri. A. Bhaskar Reddy, # Bz-F-2, Udyog Nagar Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad-82. Permanent R/o. H.No.1-71, Bramhin Street, Kotapoluru village, Sulurpet Mandal, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP. NO:259! OF 2016)

¶17

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the^grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceed ngs in M.C. No. 255 ol 2009 on the File of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally, al^{i,4 yapur,} pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C.,

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. KODAMAGUNOLA RAvl KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶19

Counsel for lhe Respondent No.2: SRI R. A. CHARY^.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

;

¶23

I I()N' I}I-E SRI .II S'I'I('I., ..S.\ 'I'HOSI I R E I)I)'

¶24

CRI-.R.C.No. I 776 of 2016

¶25

0RDtlt:

¶26

This Criminal Revision Case is flled against the order dated 24.05.2016 passed in Crl.MP.No.3S of 201 6 in M.C.No.255 of 2009 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally at Miyapur, wherein petition filed under Section 9l Cr.P.C. by the petitioners to summon the documents was dismissed.

¶27

The case ofthe petitioners is that the first petitioner and second respondent are wil'e and husband and second petitioner is their sorr. After thc rrarriage, serious disputes arose betwcen thenr and respondent No.l Lrsed to suspect charlctcr o1'pclitioncr No. I and irscd to sa) that pcl.itioner No.l rras nor born ttr hinr. Ilc alsir insistcd lirr' divorcc. Respondcnt \o.l ncckc'tl oul thc petitionu'rs Ilrnt thr' hrrLtsc' and neglccted to lnaintain lhcnr. [)ctiticlner No.l rras urrahlc to maintain hersell-and her daughter. On that the petitioncrs havc' llled M.C.No.255 of 2009 before the Judge, I'amily Coun, Ranga Rcddy District against respondent No.2 to award maintenance of Rs.15,0001 and Rs.10,0001 per month to the petitioners respectively. It is alleged that respondent No.2 is evading to pay monthly maintenance inspite

¶28

ol'his rcgullr incorne through his business. During thr.' coLrrsc ol' cnrpir\ in the said l!1.C., thc petitioners llled Crl.lvll'.No.35 of l0l6 under Section 9l Cr.P.C. to summon the documents i.e. records of both the PAN Cards, income tax retums last seven years from 2009 to 2015 i.e. i)A[XPRO247D dated 23.12.2010, ATAPP4257B dated 03.1 1.2007 to ascenain the real source of income ofher husband.

¶29

Respondent No.2 filed counter admitting the relationship and denying the material contentions of the petitioners. He denied of doing business and running the partnership firm with the name and styfe of "KarffffI vin Elevators with 45ok share in profits. lt is stated that without knowledge of respondent No.2, one o1'the partners of the said fllnr i.e. Sli I).Kaly'an Chowdary' added responclent No.2 as the fiartncr:n^{thc saidllrrn and riithoutconscntand hc crcatccl thc said} pan carcl to do busine-ss as a partner of respondent No.l in the said llrm antl on knou'ing the sarle. respondent No.2 approached said Kalyan Ohowdary and later the firm was reconstituted on 21.01.2014 and the Registrar of Firms ordered amendment and name of respondent No.2 was deleted as outgoing partner. As such, the documents sought to be summoned are not relevant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

ASR,J Crl_Rc_177 6 _20l6

¶31

¶32

After considering the contentions of both parties, the trial Court Judge dismissed the petition filed under Section 9l Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioners herein filed this revision case to set aside the impugned order.

¶33

Heard both the counsel arrd pcrused the material on record. 6. Learned counscl fbr the pelitioners ctrntendr.'d thal rcsponderrt No.l in the above case in his coLrntcr'. chiel ll'{ldn,it and durirrit thc cross-exarl inatit.ln deposed that hL'r'rc\r'r $orkc'd ol tlitl Jnr i-rusin,.-ss and he does not have any sourcc of inconrc'. Ihc contention ol' petitioners that he floated a partnership finn with the narle and style of "Karffff vin elevators with 45% share in profits and in the said firm he has filed pan cards and to ascertain the real facts, it is necessary to call for the records pertaining to pan cards as mentioned above. But the leamed trial Court Judge has dismissed the petition without proper appreciation of facts. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the leamed trial Court Judge has taken into consideration all the contentions raised by both parties and rightly disnrissed the petition.

¶34

ASR,J Crl,Rc 1776 2016

¶35

¶36

The question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from infirmity or illegality warrants intcrlerencc of this Court?

¶37

lhe pu'tilioners frled application under Section 9l Cr.l).C. to call fbr thc records ol'both thc PAN Cards. inconre tirx rcturns ol last sr''cn )ears fl'onr 2009 to l0l 5 i.e . i ).\LJXPRO2.I7[). datccl ll.ll.l0l0 ii) .ATAPP.I:57t]. dated 0l.l L:007 br sunrrnuninu. Adtlitional Comrnissioncr ol Income'l ax, Range-tl. I.l . lowers. Ited l{ills, Hyderabad. The said documents are necessary lor the petitioners to establish that respondent No.2 is eaming sutllcient income from the business and in order to establish the income of respondent No.2, the said documents are essential. The petitioners contended that the alleged documents have to be taken from Govemment Departments and copies of those documents will not be fumished until and unless there is a direction from the Court.

¶38

A perusal ol'the impugned order would reveal that the similar contentions have becn raised before the trial Court and respondent No.2 il led his re-pli' also rel'uting the said allcgations.

¶39

fhe lcarncti trial Court Judge has categoricalll' nlcntioned in thr' inrpuened ordcr that the parrics are at liben)' to adduce

¶40

AS R,.I Crl Rc 177.r 20 l6

¶41

¶42

¶43

doculnentary cvidencc as the) ar(' adr iscd hy thcir resgreclive counscl and they cannot usc the Courl as itlstruntcnl. to collcct thc c\id!.ncc. If the petitioners are relying on the alleged documents sought to bc summoned they can as well obtain certified copics t'rorn the concemed public office and file in the Court and dismissed the application holding that there are no merits.

¶44

I l. It appears from the maintenance case which was filed in the year 2009, the alleged documents to be called for in this petition are pan cards records pertaining to the year 2007 along with income tax retums from the years 2009 to 2015. It appears from the averments of the petition that the respondent in cross-examination in OP.No.I 159 of 2012 on the file of Judge, Family Court. R.R.District at I-.B.Nagar has adnritted that Parr nLrmber A'l APPR257l) hciongs to hirn. rr hrch is dated 01.I 1.2007 and alst-r adrnitted that l'an nLrnrher AUXPRO24Tt). dated 13.12.1010 does not belong to hirl. But the photographs appears in the abovc pan card belongs to him. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 is having t\'o pan cards and to ascertain the real facts about his business activitics and his real sourcc of income, it is necessary to call for the records peftaining to two pan cards along with income tax retums of last seven years from 2009 to

¶45

lt is the contention of petitioners they have approached the authorities to furnish certain information about the disputed Pan cards, but the authorities refused to furnish the information without the directions of the Court.

¶46

The powers conferred under Section 91 Cr.P.C- are enabling in nature aimed at arming the Court to enforce and to ensure the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding undcr this Code by issuing the summons or rvritten order to the person in rvhosc possession ol- thc material. In Maintenance Cases, initiul burden lies on the petitioners to sho\v that tlre lcsl:ondent lias got sul'licicnt mc:lns. neglectccl or retirsed to pa), nlaintenance, Since the pctilitrncls lltilcd to obtain thc cr'nitled copies of the docurnents lionr thc concerncd public otflce, they tiled the pctition belbre the Cou|t below to summon the documents.

¶47

Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances as contended by the petitioners by allowing this application, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2 and said documents would be relevant for the purpose of deciding maintenance application to know the real income of respondent No.2.

¶48

,\S R..] Crl Rc 1776 2016

¶49

¶50

¶51

In view of the fbregoing discussion, the impugned order needs

¶52

interference and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶53

ln the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order, dated 24.05.2016 is hereby sel aside and conscquently, thc Crl.MP.No.35 ol 2016 in M.C.No,255 of 2009 is allorred.^-l hc' learncd trial Courl .luduc is .lirccl.'r-l lo sr.rrlnron tht docurlcnts nlrnrclr rccorrls ofboth thr- I),\⁽ lrrtls. irrcrrrrc lal rclLrrns lust ser..rt \erlr\ li()nr l0tlq t(, l0l5 r.c. i)\L \l'}l{()llll) rirrt-tl ll.ll.20i(). AIi\l'I']-ll,i7ll drtcd 0.1.11.1007 lionr,\ciclitionel ( r)r'rlnrissi()n!'r ol lrcorrrc Inr. Ilrrler.ibltcl. Sirlec \1.(. r.r{alilrs t() l11e )car^{oll0()9.the trirl ( oLlrt.luclgc shrlltakc all cllbrrslirr tlisposrrl ol'} the casc ls erpcditioLrslr as possible. I'cndinrr nrisccllancous

¶54

petitions, il' any, stand closed.

¶55

¶56

Sd/-A.V,S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTY REQIqTRAR Mt- - I secrr6ii/ bFrrcrn

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

To,

¶59

'1 . The_XV Additionat Oistrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpa y, at Miyapur (With records)

¶60

Two CCs to the publjc prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTl

¶61

One CC to Sri Kodamagundla Ravi Kumar, Advocate [OplJC l one cc to Sri R. A. chiry. cc to Sri R. A. chiry. to Sri R. A. chiry. Sri R. A. chiry. R. A. chiry. A. chiry. chiry. noro"ateloFuif^{'vvqrvtvr vvvv}

¶62

one cc to Sri R. A. chiry. cc to Sri R. A. chiry. to Sri R. A. chiry. Sri R. A. chiry. R. A. chiry. A. chiry. chiry. noro"ateloFuif^{'vvqrvtvr vvvv}

¶63

Two CD Copjes

¶64

One Spare Copy MI,4K

HIGH COURT

OArEOt23l06l2022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1776^{of 2016}

¶70

,4/
,//i-
/
xI IUB NI}

¶71

ALLOWING THE^{CRIMINALREVISION CASE}

¶72

(A
n?,,V
{'/t,\Y

Mrs.P.Vijitha, Hyderabad and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.P.Vijitha, Hyderabad and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panja V.S.K. Harsa Murthy Vs Smt. P. Lakshmi and 2 Others

Smt. G. Kausalya , Laxmi Vs G. Anji Reddy, and Another

Shiva Kumar Vs a.Pradeep Kumar

Vayugundla Ramesh Vs the State of Ap., Rep Byits P.P and Anothrs

Kakarla Geetha Rani Vs State of Telangana and Another

Smt.K.Vasudha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh