Bombay High Court
Deepa Vishal Ghatule vs Pushpa Madhukar Ghatule on 27 July, 2017
Bench: V.L. Achliya
413.17crwp
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.413 OF 2017
1. Deepa Vishal Ghatule,
age 32 years, occu. Temporary teacher,
2. Shradha Vinay Ghatule,
age 28 years, Occu. Temporary teacher,
Both r/o Golait Nagar,
Manwat,Tq. Manwat,
Dist. Parbhani. ... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
Pushpa Madhukar Ghatule,
age 56 years, Occu. Household.
r/o Golait Nagar, Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani. ... RESPONDENT.
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Patil Avinash N.
Advocate for Respondent : Mr.S.M. Kshirsagar h/f Mr.Kalani
Pravin N.
...
CORAM : V.L. ACHLIYA, J.
Dated: JULY 27, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
finally at the stage of admission.
2. In view of the limited challenge raised in the petition,
413.17crwp
it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case in detail.
The respondents have filed proceedings under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
as against petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Since reply was not filed on the due date, the trial Court
decided to proceed further with the matter without reply.
On 23.12.2016, the petitioners moved an application
seeking permission to file reply by assigning reason as to
why the reply could not be filed on 25.11.2016. However,
the learned Judge pleased to reject the application by
observing that the reason assigned is not sufficient to
entertain the request. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have
preferred this writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners
and respondent No.1.
4. On due consideration of the submissions advanced in
the light of cause assigned in the application dated
23.12.2016, I am of the view that the trial Court ought to
have entertained the request. It is quite settled position in
law that the provisions of the procedural law are always to
413.17crwp
be interpreted liberally to subserve the ends of justice. If,
the request of the petitioners for filing reply would have
been entertained, no serious prejudice would have resulted
to respondent No.1. Ultimately, the matter could have been
decided on merits. While conducting the proceedings and
interpreting the provisions of the procedural law, the courts
are not expected to take hyper technical view in such
matters. The request of petitioners could have been very
well considered even subject to costs. It is pointed out that
the issue of maintainability of proceeding is involved in the
case. I am, therefore, inclined to allow the petition subject
to costs of Rs.3000/-.
5. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B)
and (C) subject to deposit of costs of Rs.3000/- by the
petitioners in the trial Court. The petitioners are directed to
appear before the trial Court on 14 th August, 2017 and file
reply. Deposit of costs shall be a condition precedent to
entertain the reply.
6. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
(V.L. ACHLIYA, J.)
kadam/*
