SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Cal) 591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.
Priti Gupta – Petitioner
Vs.
Promod Gupta – Opposite Party
C.R.R. No. 3157, C.R.A.N. No. 3784 of 2014
Decided On : 10-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Soumopriyo Chowdhury, Mr. Abhijit Chowdhury, Mr. Arnab Sinha
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anirban Guha Thakurata, Mr. Arindam Sen

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider a domestic incident report before passing any order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the importance of giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides.

Headnote:

Domestic Violence Act - Remand for fresh hearing - The court remanded the matter to the Trial Court to hear afresh regarding the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, directing the Trial Court to obtain a domestic incident report from the protection officer and dispose of the application after giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and obtained an order in her favor from the Trial Court. The opposite party filed an appeal without serving any notice upon her, and the First Appellate Court disposed of the appeal in the absence of the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Trial Court did not give any opportunity to the petitioner for a hearing, and the appeal was disposed of in her absence. The First Appellate Court considered the relevant provision of Section 12 (1) of the Domestic Violence Act and set aside the Trial Court's order mainly on the ground that the domestic incident report was not available.

Issues: The issues included the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, absence of notice served upon her, and the absence of a domestic incident report before the Trial Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the requirement in the Domestic Violence Act that before passing any order, the magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received from the protection officer or service provider. The court also emphasized the importance of giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides.

Final Decision: The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to hear afresh regarding the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, directing the Trial Court to obtain a domestic incident report from the protection officer and dispose of the application after giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides.

JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.

The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2012 on the ground of that the learned First Appellate Court, without application of mind, has set aside the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with Case No. C-1384 of 2012.

2. According to the petitioner she had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and prayed for a relief in terms of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the said Act. Learned Trial Court has passed an order in her favour and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000-/ per month as maintenance to the petitioner and her son. Challenging the said order, the present opposite party had filed an appeal, without serving any notice upon her. Without satisfying himself about the service on the petitioner, the learned 1st Appellate Court proceeded to dispose of the said appeal in the absence of the petitioner.

3. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court is bad-in-law on the ground that the learned Trial Court did not give any opportunity to the present petitioner for a hearing. In her absence the said appeal was disposed of.

4. As against this learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that every formalities have been observed and the impugned order does not call for any interference. On perusal of the impugned order I find that the learned First Appellate Court has considered the relevant provision of Section 12 (1) of the Domestic Violence Act. In the said Act, there is a proviso that before passing any order on such application the magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from protection officer or the service provider. Therefore, apparently there is no mistake committed by the learned First Appellate Court. Since domestic incident report was not available before the learned Trial Court, the said Court ought not to have passed any interim order. However, it appears from the record that vide Memo No. 838/DSW dated 11.05.2012 the protection officer has sent a message to the present opposite party to appear before him on 15.05.2012 at 12 noon. There is nothing on record as to what has been done thereafter.

5. Therefore, it can be safely said that the protection officer had taken steps for making a domestic incident report but that has not been available before the learned Trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court has set aside the impugned order of the learned Trial Court mainly on the ground the domestic incident report was not available. It is true that without domestic incident report, no such interim order can be passed under Section 12 (1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. The present petitioner has also some grievance that she had not given any opportunity of being heard and that no notice was sent upon her. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the matter be remanded to the learned Trial Court to hear afresh regarding the petition filed by the present petitioner under Section 12 of the said Act and in that case the Trial Court shall initially obtain domestic incident report from the protection officer and thereafter shall dispose of the application under Section 12 after giving an opportunity of being heard to both sides. With this direction, the criminal revisional application stands disposed of. Accordingly, the connected application (C.R.A.N. No. 3784 of 2014) is also disposed of.

7. Let a copy of this judgment and the L.C.R. be sent to the learned Court below for information and taking necessary action in accordance with law.

8. Urgent certified photocopy of th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top