HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2523 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner is the complainant in D.V.C.No.21 of 2016. The case in the DVC is that the 1st respondent/husband is not maintaining the petitioner/complainant even though she is not working anymore and she had last worked in the year 2016. The contention of the husband was that she continues to work and to demonstrate the said fact sought the production of income tax returns of the de facto complainant from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore in relation to the returns filed by her as per her Pan Card No.AVEPK8960E for the assessment year from 2008-09 to 2018-19 by way of Criminal M.P.No.1446 of 2019 before the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent/husband has approached the XI Additional District Judge's Court, Tenali by way of Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2020, which was allowed on 05.03.2021.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/complainant has filed the present application.

3. Heard Smt.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/husband.

4. As can be seen from the contents of the complaint in the DVC, the case of the petitioner is that she was working upto 2016 and is now unable to attend any employment and has no source of income for which she is entitled to protection rights, residential rights, compensation and maintenance from her husband. The case of the husband is that she continues to work and is not revealing the income she is obtaining from her employment and the same can be resolved by summoning her income tax returns which would show the income obtained by her after 2016 also. Initially, the trial Court dismissed the application. However, the Appellant Court considering this aspect had held that the 1st respondent/husband would be entitled to summon the income tax returns of the petitioner/wife in the DVC.

5. I do not find any lacuna or error in the order in Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2020 in the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, which requires the interference of this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

04.05.2021 sdp

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2523 of 2021

04-05-2021

sdp