Bombay High Court
Tahmunnisa W/O Syed Najmuddin And ... vs Gulnaz Parveen W/O Syed Kamruddin ... on 16 March, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 revn160.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2015
1. Tajmunnisa W/o. Syed Najmuddin,
aged about 60 yrs., Occu.: Household,
2.
Syed Najmuddin S/o. Syed Afsar,
Aged about 65 years, Occu.: Nil,
3. Syed Zafar S/o. Syed Najmuddin,
Aged about 30 yrs., Occu.: Business,
4. Gazala Parveen D/o. Syed Najmuddin,
Aged about 32 years, Occu.: Household work,
All R/o. Sabanpura, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati.
.... APPLICANTS.
// VERSUS //
1. Gulnaz Parveen W/o. Syed Kamruddin,
Aged about 25 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. C/o. Sheikh Jabir Bartanwale,
Near Baba Pan Centre, Chaya Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S. Nagpurigate, Amravati.
.... NON-APPLICANTS
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri S.A.Mohta, Advocate for Applicants.
Shri P. V. Navlani, Advocate for Non-applicant No.1.
Shri S.M.Bhagde, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.2.
______________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:12:46 :::
Judgment 2 revn160.15.odt
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : MARCH 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2.
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. In the proceedings filed by the non-applicant No.1 under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, the applicants filed an application (Exh.9) praying that they be
discharged from the proceedings or the proceedings against them be
dismissed. The learned Magistrate by order dated 4th December, 2014
repelled the challenge of the applicants and dismissed the application.
The applicants, being aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned Magistrate, filed appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is dismissed by the
Sessions Court by the impugned order. The applicants being aggrieved
by the above orders have filed this revision application.
Judgment 3 revn160.15.odt
4. The learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that
the learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the appeal filed by the
applicants was not maintainable. It is submitted that in view of the
above finding, the learned Sessions Judge should not have delved into
the merits of the matter and the learned Sessions Judge has committed
an error of jurisdiction by considering the merits of the matter after he
concluded that the appeal was not maintainable.
5. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates, I find that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is
not sustainable as the jurisdiction has not been properly exercised by
him.
6. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge for
deciding the appeal filed by the applicants afresh.
Judgment 4 revn160.15.odt
iii) The applicants and the non-applicant No.1 shall appear
before the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati on 26th April,
2016 at 11.00 a.m. and abide by the further orders in the
matter.
iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
