JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. In this application, under Section 482 (1) Cr.P.C. 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Smti Yalung Sindik Haging has challenged the correctness and otherwise of the order dated 22.11.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, in Domestic Violence Case No. 01/2020. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order the learned Court below has allowed the respondent to file written statement even after the delay of more than 90 (ninety) days. 2. The factual background leading to filing of this petition is briefly states as under: “The petitioner Smt. Yalung Sindik Haging wife of Shri Tasing Haging filed a petition under Section 12/20(1)22/23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking monetary relief amounting Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Fifty one thousand only), per month, under section 20 for her daughter and sons and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) as a compensation under Section 22, towards damage suffered by her before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai on 23.06.2020. On receipt of the petition, the learned Court below has issued notice to the respondent. As per Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, a petition is required to be disposed of within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of its first hearing. The respondent had appeared before the learned Court below on 12.10.2020 and 07.04.2021. But, he failed to furnish his written reply and in that context the learned Court below ought to have proceeded to hear the case ex-parte. However, the learned Court below thereafter decided to hear the case ex-parte. Thereafter, on 26.10.2021, the respondent No. 2 has filed one Interlocutory Application being I.A. (Crl.) No. 19/2021 praying for vacating the ex-parte order and by allowing him to file written statement. The learned Court below has vacated the order by which it has decided to proceed with the case of ex-parte. Thereafter, on 26.10.2021, the respondent No. 2 has filed one Interlocutory Application being I.A. (Crl.) No. 19/2021 praying for vacating the ex-parte order and by allowing him to file written statement. The learned Court below has vacated the order by which it has decided to proceed with the case of ex-parte. According to the petitioner, the ground stated in the I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021 are misleading ground and despite filing of her objection in I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021, the learned Court below has allowed the prayer of the respondent in clear contravention of Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC that the written statements should be filed within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of summon for which the respondent No. 2 has failed to submit his written statement, though he received the summon on 12.10.2020, and till date, he did not file the written statement. According to the petitioner, the respondent had failed to provide any cogent ground for delay in filing of written statement. And on that count, the order dated 22.11.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, is illogical and arbitrary.” 3. Being highly aggrieved, by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this petition on the following grounds: (i) The impugned orders passed by the learned Court below are bad in law as it was passed without sanction of any authority of law. (ii) It was passed ignoring the procedure prescribed in law. (iii) The learned court below has passed the impugned order in contravention of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. (iv) The learned Court below has allowed the respondent to file a written statement even after 90 (ninety) days without valid reason. Therefore it is contended to set aside the impugned order. 4. I have heard Mr. M. Hali, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2, Shri Tasing Haging remained unrepresented though notice was served upon him. Therefore, it is proposed to hear and decide the case on the basis of materials available on record. 5. Mr. M. Hali, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2, Shri Tasing Haging remained unrepresented though notice was served upon him. Therefore, it is proposed to hear and decide the case on the basis of materials available on record. 5. Mr. Hali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers from manifest illegality as by the said order the learned court below has allowed I.A. (Crl) No. 19(AP)/2021, without justified ground. Mr. Hali, further submits that though it is contended in the I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021 and also in the documents submitted by him in I.A. No. 22(AP)/2021, that at the relevant time he was attending emergency duty, the same are not justified ground. As per Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, respondent has to submit a written statement within 90(ninety) days which the respondent has failed. Mr. Hali has further submitted that in the instant case the respondent has submitted his prayer for vacating the ex-parte order and to allow him to file the written statement after 1 year and 8 month of service of notice upon him. It is further submitted that Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act provides that the petition of Domestic Violence Act has to be disposed of within a period 60(sixty) days from the date of its first hearing and the said provision has been violated here in this case and therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the State of Assam is a formal party here in this case and the main party is the respondent No. 2. Further Ms. Hage has submitted that the respondent No. 2 is a Police Officer posted in different places of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and as such, it may not be possible for him to adhere to a time limit for filing the Written Statement and in such situation, granting further time by the learned court below cannot be said to be ex-facie illegal. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 and the document placed on record. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 and the document placed on record. The impugned order is read as under: “Applicant is present through her engaged counsel Mr. M. Hali respondent is present through the counsel Mr. O. Deori and filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 22(AP)/2021 with prayer for filing additional documents in I.A. No. 19(AP)/2021 pending before this court. Seen the I.A. No. 22(AP)/2021 and the same is admitted and clubbed with I.A. No. 19(AP)/2021 for passing common order. Heard counsel on both sides. Perused I.A. No. 19(AP)/2021 along with I.A. No. 22(AP)/2021. Considering all aspects of the case, the prayers in both the I.A. No. 19/2021 and I.A. No. 22/2021 are allowed vide separate order-sheet with cost of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) imposed on the respondents to be paid to the applicant. The respondent is directed to file his reply on or before 15.12.2021 and also to pay the cost on or before that day by depositing the same to the Court. List the case on 15.12.2021 for filing reply.” 8. It is be noted here that this petition has been filed before 13.12.2021, i.e. before the filing reply in the aforesaid case before 15.12.2021, so fixed by the learned Court below. 9. It is to be noted here that the respondent No. 2, though received notice from this Court, chooses not to remain present at the time of hearing. A careful perusal of the record of the learned court below reveals that the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was filed on 23.06.2020, and notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent has received the same and appeared before the learned Court below on 12.10.2020 and 07.04.2021. But, he has failed to submit his written reply. It also appears that application under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act is required to be disposed of within the period of 60(sixty) days from the date of his first hearing, which was fixed on 23.06.2020. But, he has failed to submit his written reply. It also appears that application under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act is required to be disposed of within the period of 60(sixty) days from the date of his first hearing, which was fixed on 23.06.2020. As the respondent has failed to submit his written reply, the learned Court below proceeded to hear the case ex-parte and thereafter, the respondent had filed I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021 on 26.10.2021, after lapse of 10 months, from the date of receipt of summon on 12.10.2020, and thereafter, he has filed some additional document vide I.A. No. 22/2021 and the learned Court below after hearing both the parties, allowed the I.A. No. 22(AP)/2021 and I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021, allowing the respondent No. 2 to submit a written reply on 15.12.2021. 10. A careful perusal of the I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021 reveals that the the summon was not served upon him properly and that on 12.10.2020, on receipt of summon, he was present in the Court and the Court has directed to furnish a copy of the petition to him for submitting written statement and when he received the copy of summon, then four months already elapsed and the failure to dispose of the case within 60 (Sixty) days, as per the Domestic Violence Act was not due to his fault, and that he was absent on 31.05.2021, due to emergency duty at Roing, Police Station and on 28.06.2021, he was at Hunli for 1(one) week as per order of the S.P. Roing and he remained present in the National Lok Adalat held on 10.07.2021 and he also could not present in the Court on 11.09.2021, on which the case was taken up in the National Lok Adalat, due to his emergency duty in Assam. 11. It is to be mentioned here that the learned Court below has adopted the procedure, prescribed in CPC, to deal with the petition. It is a fact that the case could be disposed of within 60 (sixty) days from the date of its first hearing, as prescribed by section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act. 11. It is to be mentioned here that the learned Court below has adopted the procedure, prescribed in CPC, to deal with the petition. It is a fact that the case could be disposed of within 60 (sixty) days from the date of its first hearing, as prescribed by section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act. But, the summon could not be served upon the respondent within the said period and it also appears that the respondent No. 2 is a Police Officer and posted in different parts of Arunachal Pradesh and he could not appear before the learned Court below in time and he also could not submit his written statement in time. This aspect also cannot be overlooked by the court as it has to balance equity between both the parties. 12. Having examined all aspects, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 22.11.2021, suffers from manifest illegality or infirmity requiring interference of this Court, though however, it has not discussed the reason in arriving at such a decision. 13. It is a fact that in the order dated 22.11.2021, the learned Court below has not recorded any reasons in allowing the petition. But, considering the facts mentioned in the I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021 and the document filed in I.A. No. 22(AP)/2021, it appears that the respondent has sufficient ground for not filing the written statement within time, which the learned Court below has considered and reflected in the order dated 22.11.2021. The subsequent development, after 15.12.2021, which the learned Court below has fixed for filing written statement, is not made available to this court. 14. In view of the above, I find that the impugned order suffers from no manifest illegality or infirmity requiring interference of this Court. There is no doubt that the case could be disposed within the period of 60(sixty) as mandated in the Domestic Violence Act and also it appears that the mandate of Order VIII Rule 1 has not been adhered to. However, the learned Court below has allowed the petition imposing a cost of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only), while allowing the petition. 15. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, the learned court below is directed to dispose of the petition within a reasonable time, preferably within 60 days. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only), while allowing the petition. 15. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, the learned court below is directed to dispose of the petition within a reasonable time, preferably within 60 days. The petitioner has to obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the learned Court below on the next date and on receipt of which, the learned Court below shall make an endeavour to dispose of this case within the period of 60 (sixty) days . The parties have to bear their own cost.