3
%
Therefore, the petitioner wants the said order to be
quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assavi~liVng’_lt~hve
said order, contends in the first place
documents would be required only__p.a..l: the ti’meaW:at_”din{:i “‘
permanent alimony. Secondly, he-._cor_i_te.rids»th’at:”arhe’n..Athieji
petitioner has produced the_”–incorn’e’V’tax irvet5et_rrevs,H is
unnecessary to secure the d0_c_Vi,li’l”::e_’tit§ for’t–hev._’pe_ri.od prior
to what he has submitteri.._ substance in
either of the content!-or.s.:fA ‘Viol’ the Hindu
Marriage on the Court to
order order of permanent
alimonar -‘passed on the basis of the
financiailistaitus or The said status has to be
loolce;d” into ‘V passing an order. Therefore, the
V:docuine}:i;s_:”a.re summoned and it cannot be said to be
AL”p.re-niaAtuvEé,.,lv___ petitioner has produced the income tax
returnssror-A2oo4-05 to 2007-03. The petition is of the
Jyeer 2t)G.§–G3. The Court has to take note of the financial
-_”p.os’it-ion of the petitioner, say about three years prior to
l/
the date of the petition. It is in that regard, tax
from 2000-01 to 20%-2007 are summoned. ,’
fault can be found with the ordeJrbHp2_a’ssec_§* “‘:3}–:.1t_:fset:Fa~:ni:§f ” ‘V
Court, which is legai and vane @d%c,_}:oi 4cajt:,e t% mr:’
interference.
Accerdingiy, theV$*JE1’t_PetittV§:§’
Judge