Statutory remedy and Family Court powers govern writ refusal and the prior decision on summoning income-tax records.

Writ relief was declined because the petitioner could not bypass the statutory remedy under section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the request was therefore not fit for direct adjudication in writ jurisdiction. On the Family Court issue, section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was applied to recognise the court's civil court powers, so the objection to its jurisdiction to summon income-tax records was not accepted. The Family Court was, however, directed to decide first, on the affidavits and after hearing the parties, whether the records should be produced before any final order in the matrimonial proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained without first pursuing the remedy under section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to summon the income-tax records and whether that question should be decided by the Family Court in the first instance.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained without first pursuing the remedy under section 138(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory remedy under section 138(1)(b). The requested relief in the writ petition therefore could not be granted directly, and the matter was not fit for adjudication in writ jurisdiction on that basis alone.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to summon the income-tax records and whether that question should be decided by the Family Court in the first instance.

Analysis: Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 makes the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other applicable laws applicable to proceedings before a Family Court and deems the Family Court to be a civil court with corresponding powers. On that footing, the objection that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to summon records was not accepted. However, the Court held that the proper course was for the Family Court itself to decide, on the basis of the affidavits and after hearing the parties, whether the records should be produced before any final order in the pending matrimonial proceedings.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner to the extent that the Family Court was directed to decide the summons request first.

Final Conclusion: The writ relief was declined, but the Family Court was directed to decide the request for production of records in the first instance and proceed according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory remedy is available, writ relief may be refused, but a Family Court exercising civil court powers can decide whether records should be summoned and produced in pending proceedings.

---