Allowed

Sandeep Aggarwal v. Viniti Aggarwal

Delhi HC21 Nov 2014CRL.M.C./3961/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an ex-parte order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court, recognizing the nature of DV Act proceedings, set aside the order and directed the trial court to decide the interim application after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23.08.2014 set aside; trial court directed to decide interim application under Section 12 after hearing both parties.

Sandeep Aggarwal Vs Viniti Aggarwal — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2014)

¶1

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶2

% Date of decision: 21^st November, 2014

¶3

+ CRL.M.C. 3961/2014

¶4

SANDEEP AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev with Mr. Ishaan Madaan, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

VINITI AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin with Mr. Abhishek, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

¶8

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’.

¶9

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

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

Crl. M.C. 3961/2014

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

It may be noted here that the proceedings pending before the trial court are under the relevant provisions of the Protection of

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

Crl. M.C. 3961/2014

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Trial court record be sent back forthwith.

¶23

Crl. M.A. No.13578/2014

¶24

The application is dismissed as infructuous.

¶25

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE

¶26

NOVEMBER 21, 2014 hs

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

Crl. M.C. 3961/2014

Sandeep Aggarwal v. Viniti Aggarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Aggarwal v. Viniti Aggarwal

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

Khalsaa Tent House Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Surinder Kaur Vs State NCT of Delhi

Sunil & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Mohd Naved Yar Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Surya Kirti Thapar Vs State NCT of Delhi

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State through Gnct of Delhi