JAI VEER PUNDIR Vs. SHASHI PUNDIR
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-2
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on November 25,2013

Jai Veer Pundir Appellant
VERSUS
Shashi Pundir Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) An application under Section 12 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was filed by the applicant lady (respondent herein) before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. Respondents in the proceedings under Section 12(1) of the Act were her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and other family members including the revisionist, who is her brother-in-law. The respondents in the application under Section 12(1) of the Act appeared before learned ACJM, Roorkee, Haridwar. Thereafter, application under Section 12(1) of the Act was fixed for the evidence of the applicant. Nine opportunities were already given to the applicant when the application was listed for hearing on 18.08.2012.
(2.) When the case was called out on 18.08.2012, the applicant was not present. The application for exemption from personal attendance and adjournment was moved on her behalf. Respondents no.1 & 4 appeared before learned Magistrate on 18.08.2012. Application for exemption from personal appearance of the respondent no. 2 & 3 was also moved. Paper no. Kha-2 was the application of the applicant for exempting her personal attendance and for adjournment. It was written in the said application that she was unwell and therefore, was unable to appear in the Court. A request was therefore, made to exempt her personal appearance and also adjourn the hearing of the case. Such an application bearing the seal and signatures of her counsel Mr. Shri Kant Dheeman, Advocate is annexed with this Criminal Revision. An endorsement was made by the respondent no. 1 on the same. Such endorsement reads as under: "last nine times applicant is seeking exemption for evidence. Last two times, last opportunity has been given to the applicant. Once last opportunity has expired, so no application is maintainable for exemption to place the evidence. In view of the aforesaid, misconceived application is strongly opposed."
(3.) The said objection on behalf of the respondent no.1 was mentioned by learned ACJM, in his order dated 18.08.2012. Learned trial court mentioned in his order that the application (under Section 12(1) of the Act) was pending for applicant's evidence since 07.04.2012. Instead of adducing the evidence, applicant moved applications for exempting her personal appearance. Applicant was also granted last opportunity to adduce the evidence on the last two dates, but the applicant failed to adduce her evidence. On 18.08.2012, the application for adjournment was moved by the applicant, whereas the respondents were appearing in the Court continuously (as per the order).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.