The requirement to record reasons in judicial orders is essential for ensuring justice and allowing affected parties to challenge decisions effectively.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. (Oral)--CRL.M.C. 677/2021 is directed against the order dated 06.02.2021, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge-03, Karkardooma Courts, in Criminal Appeal No.19/2020. Criminal Appeal No.19/2020 arises out of order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, in CT/3448/2018.

2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 23.01.2020 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act) on the ground of non-prosecution. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has also issued notice to the Deputy Director, Directorate General of All India Radio to furnish details of empanelment of the petitioner herein with the details of enrolment number and details of the lawyer's fees of the petitioner herein for the purpose of determination of maintenance.

3. CRL.M.C. 691/2021 is directed against the order dated 06.02.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge - 03, Karkardooma Courts, in Criminal Appeal No.25/2020. Criminal Appeal No.25/2020 arises out of order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, in CT/3448/2018.

4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 24.07.2019 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking counter-claim under the Domestic Violence Act. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by the same order also rejected the plea of the petitioner for restoration of ownership/possession of four properties and permission to live with his children.

5. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment. The Appellate Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Appellate Court has dealt with the appeal by passing the following order:

"12. Now court will deal with the merits of the above mentioned criminal appeals.

13. Perusal of the both these impugned orders are crystal clear that Id. trial court passed the impugned orders after considering each and every point of law and judgments cited. Neither of these order suffer from any illegality, perversity nor passed the same in any arbitrarily manner. Appellant tried to mingle other issues with the present one.

14. With the above discussion, this court is of the view that impugned orders do not call for any interference and same are well reasoned and legally justified. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 24.07.2019 and 23.01.2020 are hereby upheld.

15. Accordingly, the above mentioned criminal appeals are hereby dismissed as no merits are found therein."

6. The Additional Session Judge was hearing an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the DV Act"). Section 29 the DV Act reads as under:

"29. Appeal.-There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later."

7. Under Section 29 of the DV Act, an appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the Magistrate on both law and facts. The Appellate Court has not given any reasons other than saying that both the impugned orders therein were crystal clear and that the Metropolitan Magistrate has passed the impugned orders after considering each and every point of law.

8. It is well settled that reasons are the live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversies in decision and the decision or conclusion arrived at. An order sans reasons takes away a very valuable right of a litigant - to challenge that order. The Supreme Court in CCT v. Shukla & Bros., (2