Nilawa Iraya Mathapati and anr. Vs. Revanshidaya Shidlingya - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is some breach in exercise of power s. 132(5) such breach is not so fatal as to warrant quashing the entire order. income tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--order under s. 132(5)--validity of--seized assets handed over the commissionerincome tax act 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--reason to believe--commissioner considering extensive information and anonymous petitions and undertaking detailed scrutiny. income tax act 1961 s.1321. the district judge was wrong in not remanding the ease to the trial court to ascertain what maintenance should be payable to defendant nos. 1 and 11. we have repeatedly laid down the general principle that, in all cases of this class, where a right to maintenance has been allowed the quantum of maintenance should be decided in the suit itself, even though the parties may not have, in the first instance, provided the court with the materials. once that right is decided, it is eminently desirable that the quantum should be ascertained in the suit itself, and that the parties entitled to maintenance who are generally females should not be left to separate proceedings. the appeal will be allowed to that extent.2. there will be no order as to costs.