PRASAD JANARDAN KURADE Vs. NIKITA PRASAD KURADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, original respondents are challenging the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, directing them to produce copies of the documents of SalesTax and Income Tax, in respect of their business firms, as prayed by the original applicant vide her Application Exh.11.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the application filed by respondent wife before trial Court at Exh.11 was itself vague. The marriage has taken place in the year 2012. But the Income Tax assessment returns are called from the year 2010-11. It I is also not stated in the application as to how these documents are relevant. Moreover, respondent wife, at the most, can ask for documents relating to income tax of the respondent No.1, her husband, but not the documents pertaining to the income of respondent Nos 2 & 3. It is further submitted that the procedure applicable for proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, as per section 28 of the Act is laid down in Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Code, to call upon opposite party to produce documents. Lastly, it is submitted that the relevancy of documents is neither explained nor it is stated what efforts were made by the applicant wife to secure copies of those documents. Hence according to learned counsel for petitioners, the impugned order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent wife has submitted that after the impugned order was passed, the present petitioners have sought time before the trial Court, for production of those documents on the grounds that they are in possession of C.A. In such circumstances when the petitioner has submitted himself to the said order, there is no question of raising challenge. It is submitted that these documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding financial status of the petitioner No.1 husband and his family. Respondent wife cannot get those documents as they are in possession of the petitioner No.1 and his family. Moreover, the impugned order, passed by the trial Court directing petitioner to produce those documents, according to learned counsel for respondent, is not only interlocutory but legal and correct, hence no interference is warranted therein.