Dr. Ayesha Noorulayen Taskeen V. Dr. Mir Mohammed Noorul Hassan

CRL.P/6475/2012

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. Ayesha Noorulayen Taskeen, the petitioner, who filed two criminal petitions against her husband, Dr. Mir Mohammed Noorul Hassan, under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitions challenge the order of the Magistrate rejecting her applications to summon the respondent's income tax returns and TDS certificates for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. These documents were sought to establish the respondent's income for determining the quantum of maintenance. The Magistrate had rejected the applications on the grounds that the petitioner did not show efforts to obtain the documents from the concerned departments or hospitals. The High Court, considering the new endorsement from the Income-tax Department, allowed the petitioner to renew her request for summoning the documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799283 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C R ABDUL RASHEED
• Assessee Lawyers: B V SHANKARA RAO
• Keywords: Domestic Violence; Income Tax Returns; Maintenance; TDS Certificates; Economic Violence
• Section: 12; 9(1); 9(1); 9(1); 9(2); 91; 482

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6475/2012 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.6476/2012 BETWEEN: Dr.Ayesha Noorulayen Taskeen, W/o. Dr.Mir Mohammed Noorul Hassan, Aged about 36 years, R/at No.7/2, Langford Garden, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025. ... Petitioner (Common in both Petitions) (By Sri.B.V.Shankara Narayana Rao, Advocate) AND: Dr.Mir Mohammed Noorul Hassan, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.318, 1st ‘A’ Cross, 3rd Block, HRBR Layout, Bangalore-560 084. ... Respondent (Common in both Petitions) (By Sri.C.R.Abdul Rasheed, Advocate) These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the MMTC-I, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.207/2011 (Annexure-A) and consequently allow the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 9 (1) & (2) of Code of Cr.P.C. 2 These Criminal Petitions coming for admission on this day, the Court made the following: O R D E R As the parties to these petitions are common and they relate to one and the same proceedings initiated by the petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,2005 (for short, the ‘Act’), both these petitions were heard and are being disposed of by this common order. 2) In these two petitions, the common petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the two applications filed by her under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., one for summoning the income tax returns for the year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 filed by the Respondent-husband and another for directing the respondent to produce the TDS certificates for those relevant years issued by the different hospitals. According to the petitioner, these documents are very much relevant for the purpose of establishing the income of the 3 respondent to determine the quantum of maintenance that could be ordered by the court. 3) In the petition filed by the petitioner under Section-12 of the Act, the petitioner has contended that there is economic violence committed by the respondent. She has sought for an order of maintenance from the respondent. It is for the ascertainment of the quantum of maintenance, the petitioner sought for summoning the aforesaid documents. The applications were opposed by the respondent by filing objections. 4) The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides, by the impugned order, rejected the applications mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that she had made efforts to secure copies of the documents from the concerned department or the hospital and that the concerned authorities have refused to furnish the copies thereof. Aggrieved by the rejection of the applications, the petitioner has presented these petitions. 4 5) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 6) During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at the time of hearing the applications before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had made efforts to secure the copies of the Income-tax Returns and other documents by filing application, but she had not received any reply from the concerned department. According to the learned counsel, now the petitioner has received an endorsement from the Income-tax Department to the effect that since information requested being personal to the respondent-assessee, the copies thereof cannot be made available. According to the learned counsel, in the light of this endorsement, unless the documents are summoned from the concerned Department, the petitioner will not be in a position to satisfactorily establish the monthly or annual income of the respondent. It is further submitted that, for the purpose of determining the quantum of maintenance, it is necessary 5 for the petitioner to prove the monthly or annual income of the respondent and for that purpose, all the documents sought to be summoned are very much necessary. 7) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, as such, there is no justifiable ground for this court to interfere with the said order. 8) No doubt the burden of establishing the monthly or annual income on the part of the respondent for the purpose of claiming maintenance, is on the petitioner. However, the learned Magistrate rejected the applications as noticed supra only on the ground that the petitioner has not made any efforts to secure the copies of the Income-tax Returns from the concerned Department. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the specific claim in the proceedings, it cannot be said that the documents sought to be summoned are not necessary for proper decision in the matter. The wife, who claims 6 maintenance is required to prove the income of the husband. For that purpose, she wanted to get the documents from the Income-tax Department, to which the respondent said to have filed his Income-tax Returns every year. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent is a Doctor by profession and he is assessed to income. Therefore, it can be presumed that the respondent has filed his Income-tax Returns every year. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has not produced any material on record to show that she had made efforts to secure the documents from the concerned Department, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed error in rejecting the said application. However, since it is now submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has subsequently received an endorsement from the Income-tax Department refusing to provide necessary information and the copies thereof, a fresh cause-of-action has arisen to the petitioner to renew her request before the learned Magistrate on this basis and seek summoning of the documents. If such a request is made, it is needless to 7 point-out that the learned Magistrate is required to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. With the above observations, these petitions are disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE KGR* "