Fair Trial for both parties in DV : ADSJ Delhi

-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.K. BANSAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI
IN RE: Criminal Revision No. 196/07
Shivani Kabra
w/o Sh Shaleen Kabra
r/o A-142. 3rd Floor
Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi
.......... Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Shaleen Kabra (Husband)
S/o Sh Ram Prasad
2. Ram Prasad (Father-in-law)
3. Smt Leelawati (Mother-in-law)
W/o Sh Ram Prasad
All r/o D-II/64 Pandara Road,
New Delhi.
4. Lata Soni (sister-in-law)
s/o Sh Gopi Wallabh Soni
R/o Erera Colony, Bhopal
(M.P)
5. The State (NCT of Delhi)
............ Respondents.
.....................
O R D E R
The present revision petition has been preferred
-: 2 :-
against the order dated 09.10.2007 whereby the court has
directed both the parties including the revisionist herein to file
affidavit in evidence and put the case for cross examination for
13.11.2007.
2. Notice of the revision was given to the respondents.
Trial court record was requisitioned.
3. The facts in brief are that the revisionist herein filed
an application under the Protection of Woman From Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. On that application notice to respondent
was given. Interim order was passed on 08.06.2007 and
thereafter the present order to lead evidence and come for
cross examination was passed.
4. Ld counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the
present case there is no procedure prescribed under the Act
that the ld Trial court shall record the evidence and also
conduct the cross examination. Ld counsel submitted that the
Act was enacted to provide a remedy in Civil Law for Protection
of Woman victim of Domestic Violence and to prevent the
-: 3 :-
occurrence of Domestic Violence in the Society. The Law also
provides that the application is to be decided within he period
of 60 days from the date of first hearing. Ld counsel submitted
that in case the matter is fixed for evidence then it cannot be
decided within the mandatory period of 60 days. Even
otherwise, in the present case the respondent in reply to the
application of the revisionist has not denied the infliction of
injuries on the body of the revisionist and he has categorically
refused the entry of the revisionist in the house. As the
respondents is not disputing the infliction of injuries,
therefore, there is no need to ask for the parties to lead
evidence and also come forward for cross examination. Ld
counsel submitted that the Ld Trial court has erred in Law as
well as the facts of the case for asking the parties to lead
evidence and to come for cross examination. The order is not
sustainable as now the only relief which remains to be
adjudicated is the relief of maintenance, custody of Istri Dhan
and other house hold goods. In that respect affidavits of both
the parties are already on record and the matter may be
adjudicated on the basis of the same. There is no need to lead
evidence on these points. It is prayed that keeping in view all
-: 4 :-
these facts the order be set aside and the ld Trial court be
directed to decide the matter on the basis of the affidavits
already available on the file.
5. Ld counsel for the respondents submitted that for
reaching to just conclusion in the case it is necessary that the
court shall take evidence. In the present case the revisionist
has filed her own affidavit. Respondent has also filed his own
affidavit. To ascertain the veracity of the assertain made in the
affidavits and the truthfulness of the parties it is necessary
that they be put to the test of cross examination and the Ld
Trial court has rightly taken the decision and asked the
parties to lead evidence and come for cross examination. It is
prayed that there is no illegality in the order and the revision
be dismissed.
6. After hearing the arguments and going through the
record, I am of the opinion that it is the duty and
responsibility of every court to adjudicate the matter after
taking evidence and according fare opportunity to both the
parties to plead their own case. In the present case the
-: 5 :-
revisionist moved an application under Protection of Woman
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 leveling allegations against
the respondent. Respondent had taken his own plea in this
regard and the interim order had already been passed on the
basis of pleadings. Now to come to the just conclusion about
the allegations and counter allegations it is necessary that the
parties be given opportunity to lead their evidence and also to
come in the witness box and face the cross examination. In my
opinion, the ld Trial court by asking the parties to appear for
cross examination had only taken a step for bringing on record
the truth and to reach to the just conclusion, therefore, I do
not find any merit in the revision, same is dismissed. Trial
court record along with the copy of this order be sent back.
File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ( V.K. BANSAL )
Dated: 07.12.2007 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI