Dismissed¶15

Sudam Mahada Walale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC13 Jan 2025WP/6/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench | Neutral citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:1035-DB | Criminal Writ Petition No.6 of 2025 | Decided 13 January 2025 | Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Rohit W. Joshi, JJ. | Sudam Mahada Walale v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. | Domestic Violence Act, Section 12 | Criminal M.A. No.372 of 2022 before JMFC Hingoli | writ jurisdiction refused; attendance difficulty of petitioner resident in Pune; handicapped petitioner; DV proceedings not penal; absence permitted with leave of Court; remedies within the enactment itself; petition rejected at threshold. Counsel: P. V. Tapse Patil for petitioner; N. R. Dayama, APP for State.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are not penal in nature, and the petitioner may remain absent on any date with the permission of the Court. ¶15

Sudam Mahada Walale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its Constitutional (writ) powers to grant relief to the petitioner — stated to be a resident of Pune and a handicapped person who finds it difficult to attend — in respect of the Domestic Violence proceedings (Criminal M.A. No.372 of 2022) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli.

¶15

Court's answer

Proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are not penal in nature, and the petitioner may remain absent on any date with the permission of the Court.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

No writ can be issued on the ground of the petitioner's difficulty in attending the Hingoli court, since the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class would be flooded with cases of a similar nature and parties in those matters face similar or some difficulties in attending.

¶15

Key takeaways

The enactment contains necessary provisions which the petitioner can himself use; accordingly, taking into consideration the reasons given, no case was made out for exercise of this Court's Constitutional powers and the petition was rejected at the threshold.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition No.6 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; decided 13.01.2025; Coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Rohit W. Joshi, JJ.) — Sudam Mahada Walale v. The State of Maharashtra and Another — Dismissed at the threshold. Respondent No.2 had filed Criminal M.A. No.372 of 2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli, for various reliefs under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (application dated 22.08.2022; petitioner's say dated 27.09.2023). The petitioner, stated to be a resident of Pune and a handicapped person who found it difficult to attend at Hingoli, sought the Court's Constitutional (writ) intervention; he had not applied before the learned Magistrate for expeditious disposal. Held: (i) proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are not penal in nature, and the petitioner may remain absent on any date with the permission of the Court; (ii) no writ can be issued, as the Magistrate would be flooded with cases of similar nature and parties in such matters face similar difficulties in attending; (iii) necessary provisions exist in the enactment which the petitioner can use — hence no case was made out for exercise of the High Court's Constitutional powers.

¶1

14-wp-06-2025.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:1035-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

14 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6 OF 2025

¶5

SUDAM MAHADA WALALE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Mr. P. V. Tapse Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 13 JANUARY 2025

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

. Leave to correct. Amendment to be carried out within two days.

¶12

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. It appears that Criminal M. A. No.372 of 2022 is filed by respondent No.2 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli for various reliefs under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Now, the applicant submits that he is resident of Pune and the proceedings has been filed in Hingoli. It is difficult for him to attend the proceedings before the Court at Hingoli. He also submits that he is a handicapped person.

¶13

[1]

¶14

14-wp-06-2025.odt

¶15

It is to be noted that the said application appears to have been filed on 22.08.2022. Say has been filed by the present applicant on 27.09.2023. Upon inquiry, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not preferred any application for expediting the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. We would like to submit that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act per se is not penal in nature, still if on any date the petitioner wants to remain absent, then with the permission of the Court he can. Taking into consideration the reasons now given, no writ can be issued as the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class would be flooded with cases of similar nature as well as other cases. There would be similar or some difficulties for the parties appearing in those matters to attend the case. Necessary provisions are there in the enactment which can be used by the petitioner and, therefore, no case is made out for exercise of Constitutional powers of this Court. Hence, the petition stands rejected at the threshold.

¶16

[ ROHIT W. JOSHI ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶17

scm

¶18

[2]

Sudam Mahada Walale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudam Mahada Walale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar Bhausaheb Thombare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sampat Shankar Mapari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Madhukar Maroti Khutale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Narendra Jagnnath Yerawar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Santosh Totarm Jamdhade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anil Panditrao Salunke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another