MOHINDER Vs. RUCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition takes exception to the concurrent view taken by two Courts below. The respondent had filed application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The trial Court allowed the said application and passed the following final order:

(3.) THE argument of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity and, in fact, his evidence was not recorded, though he was present in Court. This argument deserves to be stated to be rejected, inasmuch as the order-sheet dated 30th August, 2011, records that the petitioner did not remain present in Court, despite three opportunities given to him. As a result, the Court had no other option but to close his evidence and proceed with the arguments. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the said factual position stated in the order-sheet. In other words, it is not possible to countenance the grievance of the petitioner that he was not given sufficient opportunity. It is unfathomable that if the petitioner was present in the Court, he would permit the Court to record the fact that he was not present, as is noted in the order, dated 30th August, 2011. Thus understood, the argument of the petitioner that the Court ignored the presence of the petitioner while he was in Court and proceeded to close the evidence cannot be countenanced. .