Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 270 (HP)

Major Paras Rehni v. Abha Rehni

2015-03-31

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against the order dated 2.2.2015, rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P. in CMA No. 388/4 of 2014 in Main Petition No. 141/3 of 14/2012. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 24.2.2011. Respondent No. 1 has filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 18.6.2012 against the petitioners. It was registered on 21.6.2012. The notices were issued to the petitioners for 16.7.2012, 27.8.2012, 17.11.2012, 15.1.2013, 23.5.2013, 12.7.2013, 27.8.2013 and 28.10.2013. The petitioners were duly served and despite their service, they did not appear before the trial Court. They were proceeded against ex-parte on 28.10.2013. The petitioners filed an application seeking setting aside of order dated 28.10.2013 whereby they were proceeded against ex-parte. According to the averments contained in the application, petitioner No. 1 was out of India for one year course. It is averred in the application that Mr. Chadha has informed petitioner No. 1 that a case was pending against him under the Act. According to him, he was never served personally by the Process Serving Agency. The petitioner No. 1 informed his counsel through SMS on 15.6.2014 and thereafter, the counsel of the applicant investigated the case file. 3. The application was contested by the respondent. The averments made in the application were denied. 4. I have heard Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate, appearing vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for the petitioners and gone through the records of the case very carefully. 5. The petitioners were proceeded ex-parte on 28.10.2013. Thereafter ex-parte evidence of the respondent was recorded on 7.3.2014 and 28.3.2014. The petition was fixed for arguments on 20.5.2014 and 17.6.2014. One Sh. J.P.S. Chadha, Advocate, appeared before the trial Court on 17.6.2014 and sought time for setting aside the order vide which the petitioners were proceeded ex-parte. The fact of the matter is that the application itself was filed on 14.7.2014. The same was barred by 9 months and 16 days. The application has been filed by the petitioners belatedly to prolong the litigation. The notices were issued to them on 16.7.2012, 27.8.2012, 17.11.2012, 15.1.2013, 23.5.2013, 12.7.2013, 27.8.2013 and 28.10.2013. They were proceeded ex-parte only on 28.10.2013. The fact of the matter is that the application itself was filed on 14.7.2014. The same was barred by 9 months and 16 days. The application has been filed by the petitioners belatedly to prolong the litigation. The notices were issued to them on 16.7.2012, 27.8.2012, 17.11.2012, 15.1.2013, 23.5.2013, 12.7.2013, 27.8.2013 and 28.10.2013. They were proceeded ex-parte only on 28.10.2013. The petitioners have not even cared to sign the pleadings. The application, surprisingly, has been signed by their Advocate. The petitioners have not filed even their affidavit in support of the averments contained in the application. The reasons assigned in the application are neither cogent nor convincing. There is neither any illegality nor perversity in the order dated 2.2.2015, passed by the learned trial Court. 5. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the matter within a period of one month from today, if not already decided.