Dismissed

Smt. Mango Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 May 2022A482/10006/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus application (mistakenly styled Section 482), the High Court directed the trial court to decide a pending domestic violence complaint within six months and to secure the presence of the absent accused using coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

To decide the pending domestic violence complaint within six months and secure the presence of the accused through coercive steps.

Smt. Mango Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10006 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Mango Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ghan Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Varun Agnihotri, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of present application, applicant has made a prayer that the complaint no. 60094 of 2016 filed by her under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Allahabad be decided as expeditiously as possible within a stipulated period.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been filed by the applicant on 20.02.2016 and more than six years have been passed, but in spite of that it could not be decided till date, therefore, in view of Section 12(5), a direction may be issued to the trial court to decide the complaint within a period of two months.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that although complaint filed by the applicant is pending since the year 2016, but last two years due to Covid-19 pandemic there is disturbance in the general working of the Court, therefore, it appears that due to that reason till date the complaint filed by the applicant could not be decided. However, learned AGA could not dispute the fact that under the provisions of Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 200, the complaint should be decided within a period of two months.

¶9

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. The applicant is lady, who has filed the complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the year 2016, but in spite of that it could not be decided although there is specific provision under Section 12(5) that a complaint filed under Section 12 shall be decided within a period of two months from the date of its first hearing and further record of the case shows that accused is not appearing before the court concerned.

¶10

In view thereof, it is directed that the trial court shall decide the complaint filed by the applicant within a period of six month from today and the presence of the accused/opposite party of the case be secured by way of taking coercive step in accordance with law.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction, the present application is disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.5.2022 AK Pandey

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.05.11 19:32:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Mango Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mango Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Mor Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Chaudhary Vs State of U.P and Another

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sangeeta Agarawal Vs State of U.P. and Another