The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to set aside Annexure-A3 impugned order dated 19.6.2014 passed by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.M.P.No.1425/2014 in Crl.A.No.305/2014. The operative portion of the impugned Annexure-A3 at paragraph 7 thereof order as against the petitioner reads as follows:-
“7. In Crl.M.P.No.1425/2014, the prayer of the petitioner is only to compel production of documents to prove what exactly is the monthly salary of the 1st respondent. There cannot be any dispute relating to the fact that the documents mentioned in that petition are in the custody of the 1st respondent. By way of producing such documents, no prejudice will be caused to him. A mere fact that the petitioner did not pursue after rejection of similar prayer by the learned A.C.J.M cannot be considered as a ground to dis-entitle for such a prayer during the pendency of Criminal Appeal in which she is challenging the dis-allowance of many of the reliefs by the learned A.C.J.M. Hence, I am of the view that the prayer in Crl.M.P.No.1425/2014 is also to be allowed.”
2. Heard Sri.Geo Paul and Sri.Abhilash Vishnu S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Philip T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. Crl.M.C is filed invoking the powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973. It is by now too well settled that the said power is to be exercised sparingly and that this Court is enabled to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to orders to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
4. The gist of the impugned order as quoted above is only that the petitioner herein has been directed to produce the salary certificate from his employer in the foreign country so as to adjudicate in the pending appeal before the Sessions Court in respect of an order. The said appeal proceedings before the Sessions Court is to impugn the order passed by the Magistrate Court concerned by virtue of the proceedings under Sections 12 & 13 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Original proceedings were initiated before the Magistrate Court under the above mentioned Act and now the matter pending before the Sessions Court is an appeal mainly relating to the question of maintenance claimed by the respondent wife as against the petitioner husband as well as the maintenance to be granted to the children. In relation to present pending matter between the parties, it cannot be said that the direction issued by the court as per Annexure-A3 to the appellant to make available the salary certificate and bank statement cannot be said to be perverse, unreasonable and/or unjust. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise extra ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the facts of this case. It cannot be said that there is any grave miscarriage of justice or there is any serious abuse of process of court. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the present Crl.M.C.
5. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent wife is pursuing a frivolous course of action by filing one petition after the other before the courts below in order to harass the petitioner and this causes much agony to him, especially as presently he is in United Kingdom. This is seriously rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondent wife. I am not called upon to adjudicate on the correctness of rival claims in this regard. However, it is for the petitioner to point out about any specific aspect in this regard before the appellate Sessions Court and if that is done, the appellate court should look into the grievance of the petitioner on that score and take appropriate decision on such objections, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the admissibility of the documents now directed to be produced as per Annexure-A3 is against the provisions of Section 391 Cr.P.C. It is made clear that this Court has not decided the issue as to the admissibility of such piece of materials referred to in the impugned order and if the petitioner has got any objection in this regard, it is for him to place objections that such materials called for is not admissible under Section 391 Cr.P.C. In that event, such objections shall be considered after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides.
With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is closed.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.