Karnataka High Court
Mrs Tanusree Halder vs Mr Akaitab Bhattacharya on 18 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4955 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Mrs. Tanusree Halder
W/o Mr. Akaitab Bhattacharya
D/o late Mr. Chandra Nath Halder
Aged about 31 years
R/at Vera 206, SJR Verity
Kasavanahalli
Bengaluru-560035. ... Petitioner
(By Smt. Anupama Shankar Arahunashi, Advocate for
Sri Yeshu Baba.R - Mishra, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mr. Akaitab Bhattacharya
S/o Mr. Ashoke Bhattacharya
Aged about 30 years
R/at A-18, Jaydeep CHS Ltd.,
Jankalyan Nagar, Malad West,
Mumbai-400 095.
Also at: #1063, Sector 3,
Urban Estate, Kurukshetra
Haryana - 136 118.
Also at: #172, MS Enclave, Dhakoli
Zirakpur, District Mohali
Punjab - 160 104.
Also at: Akaitab Bhattacharya
Regional Area Sales Manager
Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd.,
B-002, Ground Floor, Raheja Plaza-I
LBS Marg. Ghatkopar West
Mumbai-400 086.
2
2. Mrs. Shelly Bhattacharya
W/o Mr. Ashoke Bhattacharya
Aged about 51 years
R/at #1063, Sector 3,
Urban Estate, Kurukshetra
Haryana-136 118.
Also at: #172, MS Enclave, Dhakoli
Zirakpur, District Mohali
Punjab-160 104.
Also at: Mrs. Shelly Bhattacharya
Teacher, Wisdom World School
Urban Estate, Sector 8,
Kurukshetra,
Haryana-136 118. ... Respondents
(By Sri Rajesh.A, Advocate)
-----
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the impugned order dated
22.06.2020 in Crl.Misc.No.179/2019 pending on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I Mayo Hall at Bengaluru
and allow this petition.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the court made the following through video conference :
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying this Court to set aside the order dated
22.06.2020 in Crl.Misc.No.179/2020 pending on the file
of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-1, Mayohall,
Bengaluru, directing the petitioner to produce the
documents.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the
petitioner is the wife and respondent No.1 is the
husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 03.05.2015
under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The petitioner is a B.Tech graduate and she is presently
working in Bengaluru. Infact the marriage between the
petitioner and respondent No.1 was a love marriage. The
petitioner has filed the Crl.Misc.No.179/2019 under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. The respondents filed an application
praying the Court to direct the petitioner to produce her
letter of appointment, salary slip from April 2018 till
date, details of accounts of the petitioner for the past 3
years, details of medi-claim, insurance, investments,
immovable property details, IT returns for the last 3
years and copy of the Passport. The said application is
opposed by this petitioner contending that those details
are not necessary. The learned Magistrate after
considering the grounds urged in the application and also
the objections, referring the judgment of the Apex Court
in 2017 (9) SCC 700 for non-mentioning the correct
provisions not fatal to the application if the power to pass
an order is available with Court. It was also observed
considering the facts and circumstances of the case that
in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, it is just
and necessary to direct the petitioner to produce the
documents as sought and allowed the application.
3. Being aggrieved by the order, the present
petition is filed contending that the application filed by
the petitioner before the Trial Court for interim protection
has not been considered by the trial Judge. The
respondent No.1 has made intimate videos of petitioner
and respondent No.1 without her consent and
knowledge, shared them with two people. The petitioner
is having fear and requires protection. She further
contends that the learned Magistrate has committed an
error in passing the order without application of mind.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that the respondent No.1 also undertakes
to file an affidavit with regard to his known source of
income and also the status. As observed in the recent
judgment of the Apex Court in Rajanish case, the order
passed by the learned Magistrate in not causing any
prejudice against this petitioner and only in order to
avoid multiplicities of proceedings, the order has been
passed. This Court cannot find fault with the order of the
trial Court.
5. Having heard the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents
and having perused the material on record, the petitioner
also disclosed that she is gainfully employed in Bengaluru
as stated in the para 4 of the petition. The details are
sought in respect of her employment, salary and other
details. The order impugned is also specific that in order
to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the direction was
given. The respondents also undertake to furnish the
details before the Court with regard to avocation, income
and other details with regard to the status.
6. In view of the recent judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Rajanish (supra), I do not find
any error committed by the Magistrate in directing the
petitioner to furnish the same. The matter has to be
adjudicated on merits by considering the materials on
record. Hence, I am of the opinion that it does not
require any interference of this Court. The respondent is
also directed to comply the directions of the Apex court
referred supra as submitted by the counsel in order to
take decision by the trial Court within the time bound as
held by the Apex Court.
7. In view of the observations made above, the
petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GJM
