IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY], ASJ-02/FTC NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI Case ID No. 02403R005899[SECTION]16 Criminal Revision No. 12 of [SECTION]16 [ENTITY] Son of Sh. K.S. Narasimhan B-9, Anantram Dairy Complex Sector-13, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. Appellant Versus [ENTITY] Daughter of Sh. [ENTITY] Resident of 129, Uttarakhand, JNU New Delhi-110067. Respondent Date of institution of the case : 01.03.[SECTION]16 Date when the case reserved for order : 03.03.[SECTION]16 Date of announcement of order : 11.03.[SECTION]16 ORDER
1. The petitioner is the father of the respondent.
2. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 03.02.[SECTION]16 by which the Ld. Trial Court dismissed an application of the petitioner under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as '[ACT]') seeking dismissal of the application of the respondent / complainant under [SECTION] of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, [SECTION]05 (hereinafter referred to as '[ACT]') on the ground of non- appearance of the complainant in person on each date of hearing. [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]
3. Trial Court record has been received. Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that [SECTION] of the [ACT] provides that all proceedings under the [ACT] are to be governed by the provisions of the [ACT] He submitted that [SECTION] of the [ACT] provides that the complaint of a complainant is liable to be dismissed on account of non-appearance of the complainant before the Court. He submitted that in the present case the respondent / complainant has not been appearing before the Ld. Trial Court as she has moved to Zurich, Switzerland for higher studies. It was submitted that in these circumstances her complaint was liable to be dismissed as provided under [SECTION] of the [ACT] Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been held in several cases that there are instances where a complaint has been filed leading to summoning of an accused and thereafter the complainant stops appearing with the accused having to appear on each date causing him harassment. He submitted that it was to take care of such misuse of the legal process that [SECTION] empowers the Court to dismiss a complaint and to acquit the accused on account of non-appearance of the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following case law:-
(i) State vs. Reva Chand, AIR [SECTION]61 Allahabad 253 (V 48 C 91);
(ii) Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand, AIR [SECTION]98 SC 596;
(iii) Smt. Maya Devi vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., [SECTION]08 Crl.L.J. (NOC) 256 (Delhi);
(iv) Amita Sundra & Ors. vs. Ms. Sheetal Khanna, [SECTION]08 Crl.L.J. 66; and
(v) Sugarbai M. Siddiq & Ors. vs. Ramesh S. Hankare (dead) by LRs, ([SECTION]01) 8 SCC 477.
4. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] perused the record of the Trial Court. Before proceeding further it will be apt to reproduce the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] as under:-
"28.Procedure.
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] and offences under [SECTION] shall be governed by the provisions of the [ACT], [SECTION]73 (2 of [SECTION]74).
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under [SECTION] or [SECTION]."
5. [SECTION] of the Act lays down that all proceedings under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] and offences under [SECTION] are to be governed by the provisions of the [ACT] However sub- [SECTION] empowers the Court to lay down and follow its own procedure for disposal applications under [SECTION] and [SECTION]. In other words, in proceedings relating to applications under [SECTION] and [SECTION], a Court is not bound by the provisions of the [ACT] and can adopt its own procedure for disposal of such applications.
6. The Trial Court record reveals that presently the complaint is pending determination of an application / prayer made for monetary relief under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. [SECTION] of the Act includes proceedings with respect to monetary relief under [SECTION] of the Act.
7. Thus presently what is pending before the Ld. Trial Court are proceedings under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and as per [SECTION], the Court is empowered to lay down its own procedure for disposal of such an application.
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]
8. As per the petitioner, the respondent / complainant, who is his own daughter, is now in Switzerland pursuing higher education. In the case of Shambhu Prasad Singh vs. Manjari, reported in [SECTION]0 ([SECTION]12) DLT 647, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to hold that the basic objective of enacting the [ACT] was to secure various rights to women living in, amongst others, in a domestic relationship. It was further observed in the said case that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and Court should adopt a construction to its provisions which advances parliamentary intention rather than confining it.
9. The complainant of this case is the daughter of the petitioner. She is a young girl who is pursuing her education in Switzerland. She is seeking maintenance from her father. The Ld. Trial Court has noted that since what is pending before it is an application for maintenance, personal appearance of the complainant is not necessary at this stage. Had such a course not been adopted, the complainant would have to choose either not to pursue her higher education or to give up her rights under the said statute. Putting the complainant in such a predicament cannot be said to advance the parliamentary intention in enacting the [ACT].
10. As observed, [SECTION] of the Act empowers the Trial Court to lay down and adopt its own procedure to deal with an application under [SECTION] of the Act. In the present case, the Ld. Trial Court has deemed it appropriate not to insist upon the personal appearance of the complainant for the disposal of the said application keeping in view that she is abroad pursuing her higher education. It was within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court to have adopted the said [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] procedure as the same advances the parliamentary intention of enacting the said statute, i.e. to provide a forum for a woman in a domestic relationship to secure her rights.
11. The case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner do not deal with the provisions of the [ACT]. Rather [SECTION] of the [ACT] answers the submissions of the petitioner.
12. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed.
13. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
Announced in the open court ([ENTITY]) on 11th March, [SECTION]16 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/NDD 11.03.[SECTION]16
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY]