IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed the discharge of the respondent based on the finding that no relief was sought against the respondent and that the main allegations were against other family members.

JUDGMENT :

1. On 15.09.2023, this Court has passed following order :-

"When the matter was called out, learned advocate for the applicant did not present to assist this Court.

On the next date of hearing, even in absence of learned advocate for the applicant, the fact and issue shall be taken from the memo of the application for disposal of this application.

As a last chance, stand over to 13.10.2023."

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner is absent.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.7, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.169 of 2009, whereby discharge application of the respondent no.1 was allowed in case filed under Domestic Violence Act. Said order is confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Court No.18, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

4. I have learned advocate Mr.Siddhath Parikh for learned advocate Mr.Dave for respondent no.1 and learned APP for the State.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, what appears that the petitioner has filed case under Domestic Violence Act against, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother in- law and sister-in-law (Sasra, Sasu, Jeth and Jethani) seeking various reliefs, living behind her husband to be joined as party defendant. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate while discharging the respondent no.1 came to decision that no relief is asked for respondent no.1 herein. She is arraigned as respondent only on the ground that she is married to original respondent no.3 and there is no reason to continue the proceedings against respondent no.1 herein. Thus, application Exh.5 was allowed and proceedings were dropped against respondent no.1. Appeal under section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act was preferred before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. After hearing both the sides, learned Sessions Judge came to conclusion that main allegations are levelled against father-in-law and brother-in-law in the petition. Thus learned Sessions Judge approved the findings arrived by learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

6. In the present case, going by the grounds of the Revision memo, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders in limited jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. No case is made out to say that learned Trial Courts have committed error much less error of law.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the Revision Application is dismissed.