Dismissed

Smt. Pushpa Badoni v. Smt. Anita Badoni and Others

Uttarakhand HC7 May 2018CRLR/119/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was dismissed. The High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the lower courts' decision that interim orders could not be passed without evidence. The Court directed the trial court to decide the pending matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed; Trial Court directed to decide matter expeditiously.

Smt. Pushpa Badoni Vs Smt. Anita Badoni and Others — Domestic Violence | Uttarakhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 119 of 2018

¶3

Smt. Pushpa Badoni …..Revisionist

¶4

Versus

¶5

Smt. Anita Badoni & others ….Respondents

¶6

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. along with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶7

Dated: May 7, 2018

¶8

Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

¶9

This Criminal Revision has been filed by the revisionist to set-aside the judgment and order dated 30.1.2018 passed by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2016, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist against the order dated 14.9.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh Dehradun in Misc. Case No.726 of 2015 has been dismissed.

¶10

Brief put, the case of the revisionist is that the revisionist filed a Misc. Case No.726 of 2015 in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. Rishikesh, Dehradun under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the said case, the revisionist/applicant further filed an application for grant of interim order in her favour to the effect that, during the pendency of the said misc. case, the respondents may be directed to vacate the residence of the revisionist and shall also be directed not to enter in the said residence of the revisionist. Learned A.C.J.M.,

¶11

vide his order dated 14.9.2016, held that such facts have to be decided after leading evidence and, therefore, such an order cannot be passed at that stage and dismissed the said case. Feeling aggrieved against the same, revisionist preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2016. Later on, the appeal was transferred to the Court of learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 30.01.2018, dismissed the appeal filed by the revisionist. Hence, this Criminal Revision.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is an old lady, suffering from arthritis and heart diseases. He also submitted that the respondent no.1 on the instructions of respondent nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 misbehaved, abused and manhandled the revisionist and also caused physical and mental harassment and agony to the revisionist. He further submitted that, because of such behaviour of respondent no.1, the revisionist asked the respondent nos.1 & 2 to stay separately in a tenanted accommodation; but, they refused to vacate the house in question.

¶13

It is also the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that respondent has filed a complaint before the State Women Commission and, on account of the family pressure, the revisionist entered into a compromise with the respondent and the respondent no.1 was granted permission to stay on the first floor of

¶14

the house. He further submitted that respondent no.1 has committed cruelty and caused mental and physical harassment to the revisionist in her own house and has made the life of the revisionist miserable. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that both the Courts below erred in law and failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a house owned by mother-in-law or father-in-law will not come within the definition of shared household and the respondent no.2 has no right to retain or reside over the property in question.

¶15

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Advocate submitted that the order impugned needs no interference of this Court and the revision filed by the revisionist deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶16

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments. From the bare perusal of the impugned judgments, it is evident that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below. They are correct orders. The Courts have observed that few issues are to be decided in the case and order, as desired, cannot be passed at this Stage. The Court has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law.

¶17

7. The criminal revision is dismissed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionist then submitted that the matter is pending consideration before the learned trial Court since 2015 and the

¶19

learned trial Court may be directed to decide the matter at the earliest.

¶20

Considering the fact that the matter is pending consideration before the learned trial Court since 2015, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the same very very expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is, however, observed that the learned Court below shall also bear in mind that priority should also be given to the oldest matters.

¶21

(V.K. Bist, J.) 07.05.2018

¶22

A.kaur

Smt. Pushpa Badoni v. Smt. Anita Badoni and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa Badoni v. Smt. Anita Badoni and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajat Kumar Mamgai and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Deepak Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Tumul Nainwal Vs Rohtash Kumar and Another

Jokhey Baghra Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Smt. Ram Pyari Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Rihan and Another Vs S.s.p Haridwar and Another