: 1 : wp-1036-11=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1036 OF 2011 Sushma Dahuja and Anr. .. Petitioner v/s. Manjeet Kaur & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Mangesh M.D. Patel for the petitioner Ms. Sartaj shaikh for respondent no.1 Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for respondent no.2 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 13th JULY, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for hearing. 2. Respondent no.1 has filed proceedings against the petitioner under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) being Miscellaneous Application No.114 of 2010 in the Court the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi (hereinafter referred to as the said Court). The applicant no.2 happens to be the husband of respondent no.1. He has filed an application to go out of India on the ground that as a Chief Officer : 2 : wp-1036-11=.sxw attached to a Ship he has to go out of India. That application was rejected by the said Court by order dated 10th March, 2011 below Exh. 22. Applicant no.2 has challenged this order. 3. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. Learned Counsel for the applicant no.2 states that he works as a Chief Officer on a Ship and he enters into contracts with various companies for the purpose of getting a job as a Chief Officer. He submitted that by the very nature of his duties, he is required to go out of India and work on a Ship. He submitted that if he is prevented to go abroad, he would not be able to render his job, consequently he would not be able to earn. Learned advocate for the applicant no.2 submitted that applicant no.2 is interested in appearing before the said Court and co-operate with the Court so far as Miscellaneous Application No.114 of 2010. 4. The Court is informed that as of today, respondent no.1 is required to face cross-examination. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 states that after the evidence of respondent no.1 is over, respondent no.1 may like to examine one or two witnesses. Learned Counsel for the applicant no.2 submitted that after respondent no.1 closes his case, he may consider examining himself. All this will clearly go to show that the job of recording of evidence of respondent no.1 and : 3 : wp-1036-11=.sxw her witnesses and the evidence of respondent no.2 can be done in a very short time and that is how I am inclined to direct the said Court to take up Miscellaneous Application No. 114 of 2010 at an urgent basis and proceed with recording of evidence, practically on day to day basis. Once, that is done, the applicant no.2 may be able to go out of India to attend his job. In view of the above, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. ORDER (i) Order dated 10th March, 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi below Exh.22 is set aside. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi shall take up Miscellaneous Application No.114 of 2010 on board on 20th July, 2011 and on that date respondent no.1 shall step into witness box and offer herself for cross-examination. Thereafter, respondent no.1 would be free to examine her witness. Respondent no.2 may like to step into witness box and give his evidence. All these things should be done preferably on or before 3rd September, 2011. (ii) Learned Counsel for applicant no.2 states that till 3rd September, 2011, he shall not leave India. He states that if thereafter he wants to leave India, he shall make a fresh application to the : 4 : wp-1036-11=.sxw learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi and the said application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. (iii) Counsel on both sides have assured this Court that they and their respective clients shall co-operate with the said Court for aforesaid exercise. (iv) Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)