Madhu v. Surendra & others) filed under Section

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned orders dated 08.08.2024 and 10.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D/)F.T.C/ C.A.W. (Crime Against Women) Etah in Case no. 13310 of 2023 (Madhu Vs. Surendra Mathur) on the application filed by the opposite party no.2 in Complaint Case no. 465 of 2017 (Madhu Vs. Surendra & others) filed under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that proceedings stood initiated by O.P. No.2 against the applicant under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act being Complaint Case No.465 2017, in which an order came to be passed on 09.01.2018 providing interim compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- to O.P. No.2/wife and Rs.5000/- each to the daughter and the son. The said order is stated to have been challenged in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2018 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Etah wherein the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Etah was modified to the extent that the O.P. No.2 / wife was made entitled to Rs.5000/- for compensation. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC also stood initiated by O.P. No.2 being Case No.56 of 2017, wherein on 08.12.2018, an order came to be passed that the parties have entered into compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that with relation to non-disposal of the proceeding being Complaint Case No.465 of 2017, under Section 12 of D.V. Act, the applicant preferred Application u/s 482 No. 31255 of 2022, Surendra Mathur and 5 others vs. State of U.P. which came to be disposed of on 21.10.2022 while passing the following order: "Heard Sri Rahul Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned counsel for the State-respondent. By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants made a prayer to direct the court below to conclude the proceeding of complaint case No. 465 of 2017, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC (CAW), Etah, expeditiously within stipulated period of time. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no. 1 is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and rest of the applicants are his family members and opposite party no. 2 in the year 2017 moved an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and although more than five years have been passed but application moved by opposite party no. 2 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is still pending. He further submitted that applicant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are presently residing in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh while applicant nos. 5 and 6 are the resident of District Mathura and therefore, they are facing great difficulty to attend the proceeding of the case which is pending in District Etah and therefore, it is desirable to give a direction to the court below to conclude the proceeding of the case, as expeditiously as possible, within stipulated period of time. Learned AGA submitted that he is having no objection, if any such direction is given to the court below. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that opposite party no. 2, wife of the applicant no. 1 filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the year 2017 which is pending although more than five years have been passed. Although, as per argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, applicants are not the resident of the District Etah where application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 moved by opposite party no. 2 is pending and they are residents of District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh but apart from that as per provision of section 12(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, every application moved under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be decided within sixty days from first hearing of the case, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and specially considering the fact that the application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 moved by the opposite party no. 2 is pending for last about five years, it is directed that court below shall conclude the proceeding of the case, as expeditiously as, possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. With aforesaid observation/direction, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed off."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that now an exparte decree has been passed in favour of the applicant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 29.06.2022, whereby decree of divorce has been passed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a proceeding purported to be under Section 31 of the D.V. Act stood initiated by O.P. No.2 regarding penalty for breach of the protection order passed in favour of O.P. No. 2 against the applicant, in which on 08.08.2024, an order came to be passed requiring issuance of the recovery certificate. Thereafter on 10.01.2025, another order came to be passed for R.W. and A.W. The applicant has challenged both the orders. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that substantial amount has already been deposited and further the proceeding itself was not maintainable, particularly when there happens to be divorce.

5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever might be, once the order dated 09.01.2018 stood modified to 14.05.2019 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs.5000/- as maintenance to O.P. No.2, then even if there are change in circumstance, then the remedy already lies under Section 25 of the D.V. Act.

6. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar, the sole question which arises for the determination is the extent of judicial intervention. There happens to be an order in an appeal that the applicant was directed to pay Rs.5000/- interim maintenance and on account of non-payment that proceeding under Section 31 of the Act stood initiated against the applicant and further now orders have been passed on 08.08.2024 and 10.01.2025, then it is for the applicant to take legal remedy as available under the D.V. Act and the application would not be maintainable here. So far as the argument so sought to be raised with regard to the fact that the proceedings are not maintainable, there happens to be an order of this Court in Application u/s 482 No.31255 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022 requiring the proceedings to be decided within a period of four months, thus it is for the applicant to press for expeditious disposal of the same.

7. In any view of the matter, once an order stood passed on

21.10.2022 in Application u/s 482 No.31255 of 2022 at the instance of the applicant, then the court below is under obligation to decide the said proceedings without any further delay, subject to legal impediment if any.

8. With the said observation, application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned orders dated 08.08.2024 and 10.01.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D/)F.T.C/ C.A.W. (Crime Against Women) Etah in Case no. 13310 of 2023 (Madhu Vs. Surendra Mathur) on the application filed by the opposite party no.2 in Complaint Case no. 465 of 2017 (Madhu Vs. Surendra & others) filed under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that proceedings stood initiated by O.P. No.2 against the applicant under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act being Complaint Case No.465 2017, in which an order came to be passed on 09.01.2018 providing interim compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- to O.P. No.2/wife and Rs.5000/- each to the daughter and the son. The said order is stated to have been challenged in Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2018 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Etah wherein the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Etah was modified to the extent that the O.P. No.2 / wife was made entitled to Rs.5000/- for compensation. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the proceeding under Section 125 of CrPC also stood initiated by O.P. No.2 being Case No.56 of 2017, wherein on 08.12.2018, an order came to be passed that the parties have entered into compromise. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that with relation to non-disposal of the proceeding being Complaint Case No.465 of 2017, under Section 12 of D.V. Act, the applicant preferred Application u/s 482 No. 31255 of 2022, Surendra Mathur and 5 others vs. State of U.P. which came to be disposed of on 21.10.2022 while passing the following order: "Heard Sri Rahul Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned counsel for the State-respondent. By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants made a prayer to direct the court below to conclude the proceeding of complaint case No. 465 of 2017, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/FTC (CAW), Etah, expeditiously within stipulated period of time. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no. 1 is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and rest of the applicants are his family members and opposite party no. 2 in the year 2017 moved an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and although more than five years have been passed but application moved by opposite party no. 2 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is still pending. He further submitted that applicant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are presently residing in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh while applicant nos. 5 and 6 are the resident of District Mathura and therefore, they are facing great difficulty to attend the proceeding of the case which is pending in District Etah and therefore, it is desirable to give a direction to the court below to conclude the proceeding of the case, as expeditiously as possible, within stipulated period of time. Learned AGA submitted that he is having no objection, if any such direction is given to the court below. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that opposite party no. 2, wife of the applicant no. 1 filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the year 2017 which is pending although more than five years have been passed. Although, as per argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, applicants are not the resident of the District Etah where application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 moved by opposite party no. 2 is pending and they are residents of District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh but apart from that as per provision of section 12(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, every application moved under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be decided within sixty days from first hearing of the case, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and specially considering the fact that the application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 moved by the opposite party no. 2 is pending for last about five years, it is directed that court below shall conclude the proceeding of the case, as expeditiously as, possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. With aforesaid observation/direction, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed off."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that now an exparte decree has been passed in favour of the applicant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 29.06.2022, whereby decree of divorce has been passed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a proceeding purported to be under Section 31 of the D.V. Act stood initiated by O.P. No.2 regarding penalty for breach of the protection order passed in favour of O.P. No. 2 against the applicant, in which on 08.08.2024, an order came to be passed requiring issuance of the recovery certificate. Thereafter on 10.01.2025, another order came to be passed for R.W. and A.W. The applicant has challenged both the orders. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that substantial amount has already been deposited and further the proceeding itself was not maintainable, particularly when there happens to be divorce.

5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that whatever might be, once the order dated 09.01.2018 stood modified to 14.05.2019 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs.5000/- as maintenance to O.P. No.2, then even if there are change in circumstance, then the remedy already lies under Section 25 of the D.V. Act.

6. Having heard the submissions so made across the Bar, the sole question which arises for the determination is the extent of judicial intervention. There happens to be an order in an appeal that the applicant was directed to pay Rs.5000/- interim maintenance and on account of non-payment that proceeding under Section 31 of the Act stood initiated against the applicant and further now orders have been passed on 08.08.2024 and 10.01.2025, then it is for the applicant to take legal remedy as available under the D.V. Act and the application would not be maintainable here. So far as the argument so sought to be raised with regard to the fact that the proceedings are not maintainable, there happens to be an order of this Court in Application u/s 482 No.31255 of 2022 dated 21.10.2022 requiring the proceedings to be decided within a period of four months, thus it is for the applicant to press for expeditious disposal of the same.

7. In any view of the matter, once an order stood passed on

21.10.2022 in Application u/s 482 No.31255 of 2022 at the instance of the applicant, then the court below is under obligation to decide the said proceedings without any further delay, subject to legal impediment if any.

8. With the said observation, application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)