DR. PRAVEEN R Vs. DR ARPITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tone for this judgment may be set by what Shakespeare said in Richard III about perjury; the relevant stanza runs as under:

(2.) Facts in brief:

(3.) After service of notice, the respondent - wife having entered appearance through her counsel vehemently opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed; learned Sr. Advocate Mr.C.H.Jhadhav appearing for the respondent contends that in a complaint filed by the respondent-wife in relation to petitioner allegedly producing come Tax Returns and other documents of the respondent, the police are still investigating the matter and therefore the question of perjury is premature; that whether in a case of alleging perjury, action needs to be taken or not, is a matter left to the discretion of the Court concerned before whom the substantive proceedings are pending and therefore, discretionary orders of the kind cannot be subjected to a deeper scrutiny in writ jurisdiction; in support of his case, he banks upon Apex Court decision in B.K. GUPTA VS. DAMODAR H. BAJAJ AND ORS., (2001) 9 SCC 742; so contending he seeks dismissal of writ petition.