IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-23418 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.8.2011 Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus Sh. Gaurav Saini ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The solitary prayer that has been made in the instant petition is that appropriate directions be issued for disposal of the application made by the petitioners under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which is pending since 2009 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar. An order was passed in favour of the petitioners on an application preferred by them under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act. The learned Court dealing with the issues directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh in lumpsum to the petitioners jointly within a period of three months from the date of the order. It was further ordered that the articles of Istridhan and the academic certificates lying in the custody of the respondent shall be returned to petitioners Crl.Misc.No.M-23418 of 2011 (O&M) -2- No.1 within a period of three months. Since the respondent did not comply with the said direction, an application under Section 31 of the Act had been filed which is pending adjudication for the past more than two years. In the petition some of the zimni orders have been produced which show that the matter is being adjourned time and again and since March 2011 it is being adjourned to adjudicate upon the objection raised by the respondent that under Section 31 of the Act the Court is not to execute the order of the predecessor court regarding payment of interim maintenance. As many as five months have gone by but this objection which is seemingly frivolous and apparently dilatory has not been commented upon by the Magistrate where the issue is pending. A perusal of Section 31 of the Act reveals that the language of the section is unambiguous. The reference to the word 'Court' appearing therein to say that the offence shall be triable by the Magistrate who has passed the order does not imply the Magistrate who was holding the office when the order was passed, but the word 'Magistrate' connotes the court before whom the matter is pending adjudication. The Court is a continuation as an institution and is not dependent upon individuals who may be occupying the office by virtue of the arrangement prescribed by the institution. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of without issuance of notice of motion to the respondent, as resorting to this process is likely to delay the proceedings further which would further frustrate the plea raised by the petitioners altogether. Direction is given to the Court below to decide the application moved by the petitioners under Section 31 of the Act promptly preferably within a Crl.Misc.No.M-23418 of 2011 (O&M) -3- period of three months, without granting any untoward adjournment to either of the parties. 4.8.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss