- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15147 WP No. 3967 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.3967 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: ARZOO SAMARTH JAGNANI W/O.SAMARTH VIMAL JAGNANI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT C1-1502, L & T SOUTH CITY AREKERE, MICO LAYOUT BG ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGADE N., ADVOCATE) AND: SMARTH VIMAL JAGNANI S/O.VIMAL JAGNANI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.302 BALAJI TOWERS JAISUKHLAL MEHTA ROAD SANTACRUZ WEST MUMBAI-400 054 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI DINESH D.TIWARI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 PASSED ON IA.NO.V IN MC.NO.6470/2022 BY I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15147 WP No. 3967 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the wife challenging the order dated 23.10.2024 passed on IA.No.V in MC.No.6470/2022 by I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 2. The application in IA.No.V came to be filed by the petitioner-wife before the Family Court seeking issuance of hand summons to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, No.1, Queens Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, for production of certified copies Income Tax Returns of the respondent-husband pertaining to 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. 3. On contest, learned Judge of the Family Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner-wife. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner-wife contends that the said application is filed seeking to produce the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15147 WP No. 3967 of 2025 documents as stated hereinabove for the reason that the petitioner has filed an application before the Family Court claiming alimony against the respondent-husband. Therefore, the respondent having suppressed certain documents, it will not be possible for the Family Court to advert to the documents, which are not placed before it and the same is now being sought to be produced for deciding the permanent alimony, which is claimed by the petitioner-wife. Hence, this application is relevant and necessary for deciding the alimony that requires to be awarded in favour of the petitioner-wife. Hence, he seeks to allow the aforesaid application and consequently, set aside the order passed by learned Judge of the Family Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- husband vehemently contends that the affidavits of assets and liabilities have already been filed by both the parties before the Family Court. He further contends that the petitioner-wife has filed an application under Section 24 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15147 WP No. 3967 of 2025 read with Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the same came to be allowed by the Family Court and on a challenge made to the said order, this Court has modified the same. 5.1 Learned counsel for respondent-husband submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH VS. NEHA AND ANOTHER reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, he has complied the requirements and produced the salary certificate, Income Tax Returns for the relevant period and also the Bank statement. Therefore, there is nothing that is required to be produced by the respondent-husband as sought for by the petitioner-wife. 5.2 Learned counsel for respondent-husband contends that having complied the requirement as per the judgment in the case of Rajnesh as stated supra, it can be said that the same is inconsequential for deciding the matter on hand. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner-wife for issuing hand summons to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15147 WP No. 3967 of 2025 Commissioner of Income Tax to produce certified copy of Income Tax Returns, as sought is irrelevant and unnecessary. 5.3 Learned counsel further contends that learned Judge of the Family Court has clearly come to the finding at para-11 of the impugned order. by applying its mind that the documents sought for by the petitioner-wife in the application in IA.No.5 may not be required for deciding the petition on hand before the Family Court. Under the circumstances, it has rightly rejected the application, which does not call for interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 7. Apparently, it is not in dispute that both parties have filed assets and liabilities. It is also seen by the impugned order that the respondent has filed necessary documents and details as is required in the case of Rajnesh as stated supra. Therefore, the documents as sought for in IA.No.5 filed by the petitioner under Order XI - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15147 WP No. 3967 of 2025 Rule 16 read with Section 151 of CPC may not be required for deciding the petition on hand. 8. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to agree with the contention of learned counsel for petitioner-wife and consequently, it is negatived. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER This petition is dismissed. In view of the order passed by this Court today in WP.No.9672/2025, I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is directed to dispose off the matter in MC.No.6470/2022 on or before 02.05.2025. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2