The Delhi High Court disposed of a revision petition, filed by the petitioner (Wife) impugning the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby, the judgment dated passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court. The Court observed that in their application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act, should also have disclosed proper reasons for seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
Vide the judgment dated 16th November 2016, the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the Wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and directed the respondent (Husband) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards maintenance as well as compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act to the Wife. The Appellate Court set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to re-try the case. Assailing the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the Wife filed the present petition along with an application for condonation of delay and an application for stay of the proceedings before the Trial Court. Vide detailed order dated 22nd July 2022, the application for condonation of delay was allowed by the predecessor bench.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no occasion for the Appellate Court to remand the matter to the Trial Court for a de novo trial. Since all the relevant evidence was placed before the Appellate Court, the same could have been looked into by the Appellate Court itself. While remanding the matter to the Trial Court, the Appellate Court did not fix any interim maintenance to be paid to the Wife by the Husband, causing her severe hardship.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the present revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC is not maintainable.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that a revision to the High Court is maintainable against an order passed by the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the DV Act. Further, the findings of cruelty against the Wife in the divorce proceedings, by itself cannot be the basis to deny maintenance to the Wife under the provisions of the DV Act.
The Court observed that the matter should be remanded back by a superior court to a trial court only when some factual inquiry is required to be held which cannot be undertaken at the appellate stage; the entire record was there before the Appellate Court for it to decide the appeal on merits. There was no justification at all to remand the case back to the Trial Court. The order of remand is completely cryptic and does not give any reasons justifying the remand. Further, the Court remarked that even if the Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the Trial Court, it should have fixed an interim amount to be paid by the Husband to the Wife.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court remanding the matter to the Trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Court.
Case Title: Sapna Paul v Rohin Paul
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Amit Bansal
Case no.: CRL. REV. P. 224/2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Shirin Khajuria
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
