Delhi High Court
Sandeep Aggarwal vs Viniti Aggarwal on 21 November, 2014
Author: V.P.Vaish
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21st November, 2014
+ CRL.M.C. 3961/2014
SANDEEP AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev with Mr.
Ishaan Madaan, Advocates.
versus
VINITI AGGARWAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin with
Mr. Abhishek, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), the petitioner has assailed the
order dated 23.08.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mahila Court, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case
No.456/3/12 titled 'Viniti Aggarwal vs. Sandeep Aggarwal'.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner/ husband in the present
petition is that he was proceeded ex-parte by learned trial court on
23.08.2014 in his absence as he was informed the next date of hearing
as 28.8.14, when he appeared before the Trial Court on 11.8.2014. In
support of his contention, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of
order dated 11.08.2014 downloaded from the internet purportedly
passed by relieving Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (South-East
District), New Delhi during first half of the day on 11.08.2014 as the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate happened to be on leave during
pre-lunch session.
3. Although, it is claimed by the petitioner that when his counsel
reached the Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate at 2:00 p.m.
on 11.08.2014, Reader of the said Court informed him about the next
date of hearing as 28.08.2014. However, the case was taken up on
23.08.2014 and thus he was proceeded exparte on the said date.
4. The comments of learned Metropolitan Magistrate was called for
and the same were received in a sealed envelope. The concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate has mentioned in her comments that Reader of
the Court was on leave for the whole day on 11.08.2014. The
comments have been again sealed. The proceedings dated 11.08.2014
as available in trial court goes to show that the matter was taken up
after lunch by concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.08.2014 and
since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner/ husband, the matter
was adjourned to 23.08.2014 in the presence of the respondent/ wife
and her counsel whose presence is recorded in the order sheet dated
11.8.2014 and the same has not been disputed by either of the parties.
5. Be that as it may, the main bone of contention as agitated
before this Court from the side of the petitioner is that he was
proceeded ex-parte on 23.08.2014 and there was bonafide reason for
his non-appearance on 23.08.2014 before the trial court.
6. It may be noted here that the proceedings pending before the
trial court are under the relevant provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') and the petition under Section 12 of the said Act for grant of
interim relief is still pending adjudication before the trial court. In
such nature of proceedings it should always be the endeavour of the
Court to decide the proceedings on merits after hearing both the
parties. Thus, it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the
petition for grant of interim relief as also the main petition, is decided
on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
7. In view of the above discussion, order dated 23.08.2014 passed
by learned trial court is hereby set-aside. Learned trial court is directed
to decide the interim application under Section 12 of the Act, after
hearing both the parties in accordance with law. Both the parties are
directed to appear before the trial court on 01.12.2014 at 10:00 a.m.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
9. Trial court record be sent back forthwith.
Crl. M.A. No.13578/2014
The application is dismissed as infructuous.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 21, 2014
hs
