Smt. Deepa @ Jaya Nahta vs Dr. Sandeep Nahta
2023 Latest Caselaw 9594 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 26 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1979 of 2020

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SMT. DEEPA @ JAYA NAHTA W/O LATE SHRI SANDEEP
                          NAHTA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, GANPAT PRASAD
                          AARYA 320 NEW COLONY NO 1 BIRLA NAGAR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA- ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    DR. SANDEEP NAHTA S/O SHRI OMPRAKASH
                                NAHTA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                DOCTOR 12 KUMHAR GALI BAHADURGANJ
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    OM NAHTA S/O LATE SHRI CHIMANLAL NAHTA,
                                AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VAKALAT
                                12 KUMHAR GALI BAHADURGANJ (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    KAUSHLYA W/O SHRI OM NAHTA, AGED ABOUT
                                55 YEARS, 12 KUMHAR GALI BAHADURGANJ
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    PRADEEP NAHTA S/O SHRI OM NAHTA, AGED
                                ABOUT    33   YEARS, 12 KUMHAR    GALI
                                BAHADURGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI AMIT LAHOTI- ADVOCATE)

                                Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397 of CrPC has been filed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/28/2023 11:20:05 AM

petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed in Cr.A. No.588/2017 by 16th Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior by which criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.01.2015 passed in case No. 5752/2011 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gwalior and the order dated 03.11.2015 passed in Case No.121/2015 has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

In brief facts of the case are that petitioner who is wife of respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was decided by learned JMFC Gwalior by ex-parte order dated 16.07.2013 since respondent no.1 was not deliberately

appearing before the court. By the said order, the respondent No.1 was directed to pay Rs.4000/- to the petitioner as maintenance on or before the 10th of every month. Against the order dated 16.07.2013, an appeal was preferred by the respondent No.1 which was allowed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 01.10.2014 setting aside the order dated 16.07.2013 and remanded back the matter to the learned JMFC Gwalior for deciding it afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1. Thereafter on 19.01.2015 in the absence of petitioner the case was dismissed. Thereafter petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoring case No. 14/2013 which was also dismissed vide order dated 03.11.2015. Both the orders have been challenged by the petitioner in criminal appeal No. 588/2017 which was dismissed by learned 16th Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior vide order dated 26.12.2019 on the ground of limitation. Against the said order, present criminal revision has been filed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned 16th Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/28/2023 11:20:05 AM

Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior on the ground limitation which is not in the interest of justice since learned Third Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 01.10.2014 setting aside the order dated 16.07.2013 and remanded back the matter to the learned JMFC Gwalior for deciding it afresh on merits, hence, learned 16th Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in dismissing the criminal appeal on the ground of limitation.

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in passing the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, present criminal revision stands dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ojha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/28/2023 11:20:05 AM