Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 33 (HP)

Rakesh Chand v. Rajni Devi

2014-01-06

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing order dated 3.5.2013 whereby Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla in case No. 49-3 of 2012 has closed the right to file reply by the petitioners. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 15.2.1993. Three children were born out of the wedlock. Respondent has filed petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to the “Act” for brevity sake) against the petitioners in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla. It was registered as case No. 49-3 of 2012. Notice was issued to the petitioners on 19.12.2012. An application for interim monetary relief under section 23 (2) of the Act was also filed by the respondent. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.5 vide order dated 2.4.2013 directed the petitioner No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-for maintenance of respondent as well as expenses of the lis and in addition petitioner No.1 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- for maintenance and necessary expenses of education of each of the children. Thus, total sum of Rs.6,500/-per month was directed to be paid by petitioner No.1 to the respondent as interim monetary relief. The application was disposed of. Matter was ordered to be listed for 25.4.2013 for filing reply to the main application. 3. Matter was listed on 25.4.2013, on which date, time was sought for filing reply. However, fact of the matter is that reply was not filed and the right to file reply was closed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. It is in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 4. Mr. K.B. Khajuria has brought to the notice of the Court that interim compensation has not been paid by petitioner No.1 to respondent. However, the fact of the matter is that now a sum of Rs.52,000/- has already been paid by petitioner No.1 to respondent. 5. The Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to file reply to the main application by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. It has also come on record that petitioner No.1 has met with an accident. 5. The Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to file reply to the main application by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. It has also come on record that petitioner No.1 has met with an accident. In view of this, petitioner No.1 could not travel to Shimla. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 3.5.2013 is set aside. Petitioners are permitted to file reply to the main application within a period of four weeks from today. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla on 16.1.2014. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months thereafter. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall keep on paying interim maintenance as ordered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class 2.4.2013. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.