The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a trial to determine issues of limitation, jurisdiction, and the relevance of documents in seeking monetary reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

G.B. Shah, J.

1. Present revision application assails the judgment and order dated 25/02/2016, passed by the learned 7th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2015, whereby, the appeal filed by the present applicants - original appellants came to be dismissed, confirming the orders dated 03/11/2015, passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, below exhs. 10 and 16 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1447 of 2014. By application exh. 10, the applicants herein - original opponents had prayed to dismiss the complaint filed by the present respondent No. 1, which came to be dismissed, whereas, by application exh. 16, the respondent No. 1 herein - original applicant had sought to direct the applicants herein to produced certain documents before the trial Court, which came to be partly

2. The respondent No. 1 herein has filed a complaint against the present applicants under Sections 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'the PWD Act') being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1447 of 2014, in which, by application exh. 10, the applicants herein - original opponents had prayed to dismiss the said complaint and the said application exh. 10 came to be dismissed, whereas, by application exh. 16, the respondent No. 1 herein -original applicant had sought to direct the applicants herein to produce certain documents before the trial Court, which came to be partly allowed, by the impugned orders dated 03/11/2015, which were confirmed by the learned first Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2015 by order dated 25/02/2016.

3. Heard Mr. Harshesh R. Kakkad, learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Mitul R Desai, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent No. 2 - State.

4. Mr. Kakkad, the learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the impugned orders, passed by both the learned Courts below, are illegal, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law. He vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have failed to consider the most important aspect of the case that the complaint in question has been filed after almost a period of two years of the alleged incidents of domestic violence and is barred by the limitation. Moreover, under the provisions of the PWD Act, the applicant No. 3 being a female member, ought not to have been joined as a party - respondent in the said complaint. He submitted that the applicant No. 1 herein had filed a Hindu Marriage Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of the conjugal rights, which came to be allowed by the Family Court, Nalanda at Biharsharif and the respondent No. 1 - wife has been directed to join the husband and as a counter to it, the respondent No. 1 has filed the proceedings in question under the PWD Act, only with a view to harass the present applicants. He further submitted that, as per the divorce petition being Hindu Marriage Petition No. 1967 of 2015, filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad itself, it is averred that there is no co-habitation between the parties for about more than three years and accordingly, the complaint in question is clearly filed belatedly. Moreover, as per the learned advocate for the applicants, so far as production of documents is concerned, the same would be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, the learned Court below has wrongly applied the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, more particularly, as per the ratio laid down in the decision of Suo Motu Vs. Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry, rendered in Criminal Reference No. 6 of 2015. Making above submissions, the learned advocate for the applicants submitted that both the Courts below have failed to consider the aforesaid