Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. 10641 of 2009 in/and Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2009 Date of Decision:May 21, 2010 Vipan Handa ---Petitioner versus Savita ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.V.K.Kataria, Advocate, for the respondent. *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision petition has been preferred by petitioner, Vipan Handa, against the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which he accepted the appeal preferred by Savita- respondent and set aside the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed on 2.11.2007, dismissing the application of the respondent filed under Sections 12,17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2009 -2- Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). When this revision petition was taken up for preliminary hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though he has no objection in resuming the co-habitation with the respondent and her joining in the matrimonial home yet on account of initiation of the criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against him and his family members and on account of the divorce petition having been filed against him by this respondent, it was not feasible for him to comply with the directions issued by Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order. Notice of motion was issued in view of the fact that the submissions so made on behalf of the petitioner, gave rise to the law point, “whether a wife can get a right of residence under the provisions of the Act despite the fact that a divorce petition has been filed against her and that criminal case under Section 406 and 498-A IPC has been got registered by her. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there were chances of amicable settlement, in case respondent joins his company along with all the articles taken away by her. That submission also weighed with the Court for issuing notice of motion. Today it has been brought to the notice of this Court that no such divorce petition was pending when the complaint in question was filed. Criminal proceedings have not been initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at any stage. If that was the case, the Court was not going to issue any such notice and the revision petition was to be dismissed at the preliminary stage itself. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Crl. Misc. Application Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2009 -3- No. 10641 of 2009, filed in this revision petition, in which a prayer was made for making necessary corrections in the order dated 9.1.2009, vide which notice of motion was issued. In that application, it has been contended that it was wrongly communicated that the proceedings were pending under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, whereas in the petition itself, it is mentioned that at the instance of the respondent, one complaint was filed under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, against his brother-in-law and others levelling false allegations. There is no merit in that application. There is no such similarity in the said two criminal proceedings that such a submission was made under some misconception. Having procured an order of notice of motion by making wrong submissions, the petitioner cannot just come up with the present application that it was a wrong communication. When such is the case, notice of motion was not likely to be issued in the revision had such wrong submission not been made. I am of the considered opinion that this revision is liable to be dismissed. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 21, 2010 PARAMJIT