Point of Law: As per Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, respondent has to submit a written statement within 90(ninety) days which the respondent has failed.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. In this application, under Section 482 (1) Cr.P.C. 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely, Smti Yalung Sindik Haging has challenged the correctness and otherwise of the order dated 22.11.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, in Domestic Violence Case No. 01/2020. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order the learned Court below has allowed the respondent to file written statement even after the delay of more than 90 (ninety) days.

2. The factual background leading to filing of this petition is briefly states as under:

“The petitioner Smt. Yalung Sindik Haging wife of Shri Tasing Haging filed a petition under Section 12/20(1)22/23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking monetary relief amounting Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Fifty one thousand only), per month, under section 20 for her daughter and sons and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) as a compensation under Section 22, towards damage suffered by her before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai on 23.06.2020. On receipt of the petition, the learned Court below has issued notice to the respondent. As per Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, a petition is required to be disposed of within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of its first hearing. The respondent had appeared before the learned Court below on 12.10.2020 and 07.04.2021. But, he failed to furnish his written reply and in that context the learned Court below ought to have proceeded to hear the case ex-parte. However, the learned Court below thereafter decided to hear the case ex-parte. Thereafter, on 26.10.2021, the respondent No. 2 has filed one Interlocutory Application being I.A. (Crl.) No. 19/2021 praying for vacating the ex-parte order and by allowing him to file written statement. The learned Court below has vacated the order by which it has decided to proceed with the case of ex-parte. According to the petitioner, the ground stated in the I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021 are misleading ground and despite filing of her objection in I.A. (Crl.) No. 19(AP)/2021, the learned Court below has allowed the prayer of the respondent in clear contravention of Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC that the written statements should be filed within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of summon for which the respondent No. 2 has failed to submit his written statement, though he received the summon on 12.10.2020, and till date, he did not file the written statement. According to the petitioner, the respondent had failed to provide any cogent ground for delay in filing of written statement. And on that count, the order dated 22.11.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Namsai, without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, is illogical and arbitrary.”

3. Being highly aggrieved, by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this petition on the following grounds:

(i) The impugned orders passed by the learned Court below are bad in law as it was passed without sanction of any authority of law.

(ii) It was passed ignoring the procedure prescribed in law.

(iii) The learned court below has passed the impugned order in contravention of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.

(iv) The learned Court below has allowed the respondent to file a written statement even after 90 (ninety) days without valid reason. Therefore it is contended to set aside the impugned order.

4. I have heard Mr. M. Hali, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2, Shri Tasing Haging remained unrepresented though notice was served upon him. Therefore, it is proposed to hear and decide the case on the basis of materials available on record.

5. Mr. Hali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers from manifest