Telangana High Court
Mrs.P.Vijitha, Hyderabad Anr., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp Anr., on 23 June, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.1776 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 24.05.2016 passed in Crl.MP.No.35 of 2016 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 91 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners to summon the documents was dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner and second respondent are wife and husband and second petitioner is their son. After the marriage, serious disputes arose between them and respondent No.2 used to suspect character of petitioner No.1 and used to say that petitioner No.2 was not born to him. He also insisted for divorce. Respondent No.2 necked out the petitioners from the house and neglected to maintain them. Petitioner No.1 was unable to maintain herself and her daughter. On that the petitioners have filed M.C.No.255 of 2009 before the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District against respondent No.2 to award maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioners respectively. It is alleged that respondent No.2 is evading to pay monthly maintenance inspite 2 ASR,J Crl_Rc_1776_2016 of his regular income through his business. During the course of enquiry in the said M.C., the petitioners filed Crl.MP.No.35 of 2016 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summon the documents i.e. records of both the PAN Cards, income tax returns last seven years from 2009 to 2015 i.e. i)AUXPRO247D dated 23.12.2010, ATAPP4257B dated 03.11.2007 to ascertain the real source of income of her husband.
3. 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 style of "Karfffff vin Elevators with 45% share in profits. It is stated that without knowledge of respondent No.2, one of the partners of the said firm i.e. Sri P.Kalyan Chowdary added respondent No.2 as the partner in the said firm and without consent and he created the said pan card to do business as a partner of respondent No.2 in the said firm and on knowing the same, respondent No.2 approached said Kalyan Chowdary 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.
3 ASR,J Crl_Rc_1776_2016
4. After considering the contentions of both parties, the trial Court Judge dismissed the petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed this revision case to set aside the impugned order.
5. Heard both the counsel and perused the material on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 in the above case in his counter, chief affidavit and during the cross-examination deposed that he never worked or did any business and he does not have any source of income. The contention of petitioners that he floated a partnership firm with the name 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 learned trial Court Judge has dismissed the petition without proper appreciation of facts.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the learned trial Court Judge has taken into consideration all the contentions raised by both parties and rightly dismissed the petition.
4 ASR,J Crl_Rc_1776_2016
7. The question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from infirmity or illegality warrants interference of this Court?
8. The petitioners filed application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for the records of both the PAN Cards, income tax returns of last seven years from 2009 to 2015 i.e. i)AUXPRO247D, dated 23.12.2010 ii) ATAPP4257B, dated 03.11.2007 by summoning Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, I.T. Towers, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The said documents are necessary for the petitioners to establish that respondent No.2 is earning sufficient 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 Government Departments and copies of those documents will not be furnished until and unless there is a direction from the Court.
9. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the similar contentions have been raised before the trial Court and respondent No.2 filed his reply also refuting the said allegations.
10. The learned trial Court Judge has categorically mentioned in the impugned order that the parties are at liberty to adduce 5 ASR,J Crl_Rc_1776_2016 documentary evidence as they are advised by their respective counsel and they cannot use the Court as instrument to collect the evidence. If the petitioners are relying on the alleged documents sought to be summoned they can as well obtain certified copies from the concerned public office and file in the Court and dismissed the application holding that there are no merits.
11. 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 returns from the years 2009 to 2015. It appears from the averments of the petition that the respondent in cross-examination in OP.No.1159 of 2012 on the file of Judge, Family Court, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar has admitted that Pan number ATAPPR257B belongs to him, which is dated 03.11.2007 and also admitted that Pan number AUXPRO247D, dated 23.12.2010 does not belong to him. But the photographs appears in the above pan card belongs to him. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 is having two pan cards and to ascertain the real facts about his business activities and his real source of income, it is necessary to call for the records pertaining to two pan cards along with income tax returns of last seven years from 2009 to 6 ASR,J Crl_Rc_1776_2016 2015. It 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.
13. 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 under this Code by issuing the summons or written order to the person in whose possession of the material. In Maintenance Cases, initial burden lies on the petitioners to show that the respondent has got sufficient means, neglected or refused to pay maintenance. Since the petitioners failed to obtain the certified copies of the documents from the concerned public office, they filed the petition before the Court below to summon the documents.
14. 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.
7 ASR,J Crl_Rc_1776_2016
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order needs interference and the same is liable to be set aside.
16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order, dated 24.05.2016 is hereby set aside and consequently, the Crl.MP.No.35 of 2016 in M.C.No.255 of 2009 is allowed. The learned trial Court Judge is directed to summon the documents namely records of both the PAN Cards, income tax returns last seven years from 2009 to 2015 i.e. i)AUXPRO247D dated 23.12.2010, ATAPP4257B dated 03.11.2007 from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Since M.C. pertains to the year of 2009, the trial Court Judge shall take all efforts for disposal of the case as expeditiously as possible. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 23.06.2022 Nvl 8 ASR,J Crl_Rc_1776_2016