C P SRINIVAS Vs. I T O MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the miscellaneous. Petition came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for the disposal.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition is as follows :

(3.) Certain proceedings were pending before the Family Court, which were got transferred from the City Civil Court, Madras under the Hindu Marriage Act between the petitioner and the third respondent, who it the wife of the petitioner. In that proceedings before the Family Court (i.e.) the fourth respondent herein, the petitioner took out a summons to the respondents 1 and 2 to produce certain documents and records pertaining to the assessment of the third respondent and her mother one Mrs. Jayalakshmi Raghavan, for the purpose of adjudicating the case pending in I.A. No. 170 of 1988 in O.P. 1038 of 1988. The Income-tax Department has filed an affidavit before the Family Court which in sworn to by the Income-tax Officer, Films Ward-I. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the Income-tax Department ought to have produced the records before the Family Court and the stand taken by the Department in the affidavit before the Family Court stating that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue the summons is not correct and that the documents are required for the purpose of adjudicating the Interlocutory application in the Family Court. It is further stated in the affidavit that the refusal on the part of the first respondent to produce the required documents before the family Court would amount to deprivation of the reasonable opportunity to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the case.