Point of Law: Section 12 reads as application to Magistrate.

ORDER :

The petitioner/wife of the 1st respondent is before this Court seeking a direction to dispose of applications dated 15.10.2018 filed by her in C.Misc.No.170 of 2018 before the II Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court at Bangalore under Sections 12, 19(1)(E) & (F), 20 & 22, 20 & 23(2) and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the Act’ for short) within the time frame.

2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The marriage between the petitioner and 1st respondent takes place on 16-11-2016. From the wedlock a child is born on 24-08-2017. The relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent appears to have turned sore and the petitioner/wife institutes proceedings under the Act invoking Section 12 of the Act and also files several other applications under Section 23 of the Act seeking non-alienation, encumbrance of schedule property, seeking alternative accommodation, monetary relief, ex-parte maintenance and return of valuable articles. In all, there were five applications filed by the petitioner on 15-10-2018. The learned Magistrate in terms of his order dated 29-10-2018 rejected the application for non-alienation or encumbering the schedule property. Except that order, the learned Magistrate did not pass any order on any other applications. The 1st respondent appeared on 03-05-2019 and filed objections to the applications. On 04-08-2021 the petitioner filed an affidavit of assets and liability statement. For filing of assets and liabilities statement of the 1st respondent seven dates were granted to the 1st respondent/husband between 04-08-2021 and 18-04-2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assets and liabilities statement is not filed by the 1st respondent even as on date. Being aggrieved by non-passing of orders on several applications that are pending consideration for close to 5 years, the petitioner is before this Court seeking an early disposal of those applications filed along with the claim on 15-10-2018.

3. Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.4 and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.5.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the concerned Court is refusing to pass orders on all the applications on the plea that ex-parte orders cannot be passed on certain applications as procedure under the CrPC has to be followed in terms of law. Since the 1st respondent/husband has not filed his objections, no order has been passed. The act stipulates that any application filed has to be decided within 60 days, and 60 days was long over and, therefore, there should be a direction to the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within a particular time frame. The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon several judgments rendered by co-ordinate Benches of this Court to contend that ex-parte orders can be passed under the Act and the procedure under the CrPC should not hinder the Court, as the Act itself empowers the Court to regulate its own procedure.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India who was asked to come into these proceedings as it involved interpretation of provisions of the Act, a Central enactment would also submit that speedy disposal of the application is imperative as the benevolent legislation that is promulgated is for the purpose of extending benefits to women who face domestic violence and would submit that any timeline that would be stipulated by this Court would become a welcome measure.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts and the link in the chain of events are