1 738.11 Cri.WP. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 738 OF 2011 Shrawan S/o Kishan Methekar PETITIONER VERSUS Suman S/o Shrawan Methekar RESPONDENT ..... Shri B.S. Kudale, Advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 17 th November, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused petition and annexure therewith. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution questions the wisdom of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, District Hingoli, in restoring Criminal M.A. No. 48/2009, under Section 18 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short “said Act”), to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sengaon. 2 738.11 Cri.WP. 2. The facts pleaded in the petition have remain un- controverted as the respondent though served with the notice of this petition has failed to appear before this Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner, that the respondent despite availing sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in the said application under the said Act remained absent before the trial court on the given date i.e. 03-02-2010, and the application was dismissed for default; and the restoration application moved before the trial Court was withdrawn, and subsequently the order of dismissal was challenged in the Criminal Appeal No. 10/2010 filed under Section 29 of the said Act, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. The petitioner states that he opposed the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent and contended that the respondent deliberately remained absent wasting opportunity to lead evidence, and as such had no interest in prosecuting the appeal, and therefore, the appeal be dismissed. According to the petitioner, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli contrary to the provisions of law, principles of natural justice and without application of mind, quashed and set aside the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the said application. 3 738.11 Cri.WP. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that the restoration of the application of the respondent done by the learned appellate Court needs to be set aside. 5. Perusal of the impugned judgment dated 09-08-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, District Hingoli, in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2010 reveals that the learned appellate Court did consider every contention of the petitioner and the submissions of rival parties and made following observations : “ On perusal of respective submissions, it clearly reveals that the appellant/applicant has preferred this appeal against the dismissal order. There is no evidence adduced on her behalf to evaluate in this appeal. However, the applicant is claiming herself as aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also claiming that she was required to collect evidence as the respondent has denied the marriage itself. Under such circumstances, considering the nature of dispute, it will be just and proper to give opportunity to the appellant/applicant to get her application decided on merits by giving her opportunity to adduce evidence on her behalf in support of her 4 738.11 Cri.WP. application and for that purpose it will be just and proper to remand the matter and restore her original application by setting aside the order of dismissal in default. Hence, the order” 6. Approach of the learned appellate Court is to afford to the parties another opportunity to get the controversy resolved on merits. This cannot be condemned as something contrary to the principles of natural justice. No merit, is therefore, seen in the present petition. The petition stands rejected. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* November-11