RAKHI Vs. RAHUL PANJWANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inherent powers of this court u/S. 482 CrPC are invoked assailing the interlocutory order dated 16/1/19 of the learned Magistrate trying a petition u/S. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("2005 Act" for brevity) by which the learned trial Judge inter alia allowed the application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC preferred by the husband directing production of records.

(2.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

(3.) The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provision of Section 28 of 2005 Act, the procedure to be adopted for conducting proceedings in petition u/S. 12 of 2005 Act (as is the case herein) are governed exclusively by CrPC and not by the CPC. In this background, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/wife that the trial court traveled beyond its jurisdiction while entertaining and allowing the application filed by the respondent/husband by invoking provisions of CPC (Order XI Rule 12). Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the decision of Apex Court in the case of Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and anr. (2016) 11 SCC 774.