Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 967 (KAR)

Punuru Samana v. P. V. Niranjan Kumar Reddy

2014-11-06

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2014
Judgment 1. This petition is directed against an order dated 05.09.2013 passed on I.A.No.4 in Crl.Misc.No.358/2008 of the 1st Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: The parties are estranged couple. Petitioner instituted Crl.Misc.No.358/2008, under S.125 of the Cr.P.C., in the Family Court, Bengaluru to direct the respondent to pay maintenance from 07.07.2008 at Rs. 2,50,000/- per month. The case has been contested by the respondent. An application filed to direct the respondent for payment of interim maintenance was allowed on 10.02.2011. The case is at the stage of trial. I.A.No.4 was filed, invoking S.91 of the Cr.P.C., to direct the respondent to furnish the documents, listed therein. The application having been opposed, was rejected with an observation, that unless the income and status of the respondent is established by leading evidence, the application is premature. 3. Mrs. Bhanu Ravinder, learned advocate, contended that the acceptance of the statement of the respondent by the Court below, that the respondent has no documents in his possession is perverse, since the respondent frequently travels to USA and carries on business therein. She submitted that the observation made, that unless evidence is led regarding the income and status of the respondent is established the application is premature, is illegal. She submitted that the impugned order, in the facts and circumstances of the case being arbitrary, calls for interference. 4. Sri S.K. Jayaramu, learned advocate for the respondent, on other hand, by referring to the statement of objections filed to I.A.No.4 and the statement of objections filed to this writ petition, made submissions in support of the impugned order arid sought dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Considered the rival contentions and perused the writ record. The point for consideration is, whether the Court below has committed illegality in rejecting I.A.No.4? 6. S.91(1) of the Code reads as under: "91. 5. Considered the rival contentions and perused the writ record. The point for consideration is, whether the Court below has committed illegality in rejecting I.A.No.4? 6. S.91(1) of the Code reads as under: "91. Summers to produce document or other thing.-(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary cr desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order." From the provision extracted supra, it is clear that any document or thing envisaged therein can be ordered to be produced on finding that the document is available and the same is "necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code". 7. The respondent has denied possession of any of the documents, mentioned in I.A.No.4. When the possession of the documents itself is denied and the petitioner has not established that the original document(s) is available with the respondent, the question of compelling the production thereof, does not arise. 8. Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure contains certain provisions with the object to save expenses by obtaining information as to material facts and to obtain admission on any fact, which the petitioner has to prove on any issue. The object of the provision is to secure all material documents and to put an end to protract the enquiry with respect to the documents/material in possession of opposite party. No adverse inference can be drawn against the party for non- production of the documents, unless notice is served and the stipulated procedure is followed. Rule 14 of Order XI of the Code enables the Court to direct any party to produce the documents asked by other party, which is in his possession or power and relating to any material in question in the suit. Unless the Court is satisfied that the mandatory requirement of Order XI of CPC has not been met, no adverse inference can be drawn against the opposite party. 9. Unless the Court is satisfied that the mandatory requirement of Order XI of CPC has not been met, no adverse inference can be drawn against the opposite party. 9. In the instant case, in the objection statement filed to I.A.No.4, respondent has denied the possession of any of the documents, directed to be produced by the petitioner. However, in the statement of objections filed to this writ petition, the respondent has admitted that he is having U.S. Passport, which according to him was renewed by the petitioner at the time of applying for PIO Card for their child. 10. Since possession of the documents stated in I.A.No.4 has been denied by the respondent and the learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to point out any material, on the basis of which, finding recorded by the Trial Court, can be held as perverse or illegal, I do not find any justification to grant the relief. The impugned order, though was contended as perverse and illegal, has not been shown to be so. The impugned order is neither against the record of the case nor the law. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to produce his, “US Passport” in the Court below, when called upon to do so. It is open to the petitioner to elicit during examination of the respondent, about the possession of properties and income etc., either at U.S., wherein he is alleged to be carrying on business or in India, in support of the claim made, to direct the payment of the maintenance. No costs.