Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2666 (RAJ)

Neeta Tomer v. Narendra Tomer

2008-12-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Hon ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner complainant has challenged the order dated 23.1.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.4. Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short the appellate court ) in appeal No.01/08 (1022/2007) by which he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner complainant and confirmed the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate No.21, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short the trial court ) in complaint No.81/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a complaint No.81/2007, under section 12 of the Protection of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the Act of 2005 ) in the trial Court. The respondent filed reply to the complaint. 3. The trial court after hearing both the parties, disallowed the interim relief vide order dated 12.12.2007. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 12.12.2007 preferred an appeal in the appellate court. 5. The appellate court after hearing, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the trial court, vide order dated 23.1.2008. 6. The petitioner complainant feeling aggrieved with the order dated 23.1.2008 passed by the revisional court, has preferred instant revision before this court. 7. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 8. Mr. Harish Khan, appearing on behalf of Mr. R.R. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have not gone through the facts of the case and committed an illegality and irregularity in passing the orders impugned. Both the courts below have failed to gone through the provisions of section 18 and 19 of the Act of 2005 and erred in passing the orders impugned as they have also not gone through the contents of the complaint. Thus, orders impugned passed by the courts below are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 9. Mr. Amit Mundia, counsel for the respondent submits that both the courts below have rightly passed the orders impugned and no illegality and irregularity in passing the same. 10. From the bare perusal of the orders impugned it is clear that both the courts below have not gone through the facts of the case as also provision of section 18 and 19 of the Act of 2005 and erred in passing the orders impugned. 11. 10. From the bare perusal of the orders impugned it is clear that both the courts below have not gone through the facts of the case as also provision of section 18 and 19 of the Act of 2005 and erred in passing the orders impugned. 11. In view of above, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 23.1.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur is quashed and set-aside and remanded the matter to the appellate Court. The appellate court is directed to re-hear both the parties and pass a fresh order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt a certified copy of this Judgment. The appellate Court shall proceed in the matter expeditously.