The urgency of disposing of applications under the Domestic Violence Act within 60 days and the need to protect women from domestic violence and provide them with shelter, economic support, and legal help.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri V.K. Twivedi, Advocate holding breif of Shri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Shri M.P. Singh Gaur, learned AGA for the State.

2. This revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court no. 1, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 2016 (Pramod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No. 8829 of 2014 (Pramod Kumar Singh Vs. Pratima Singh), P.S. Kaptanganj, District Gorakhpur by which the learned court below has rejected the application of the husband to set aside the judgment and order dated 31.5.2014 by which application of wife was allowed under section 12 Domestic Violence Act.

3. The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that the impugned orders are based on misreading of record, non- appreciation of fact/evidence and illegal application of law. Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur disposed of the application of opposite party no. 2 under Domestic Violence Act on 31.05.2014 and the order was passed ex-parte against the revisionist. A recall application to recall the order dated 31.05.2014 was given by the applicant-revisionist and the same was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur by impugned order dated 03.11.2016 and the Appellate Court has committed grave error in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-revisionist. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjecture. Service of notice on revisionists is not in accordance with law and the learned Magistrate has not complied with Rule 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006. The revisionist no. 1 was not made party in the application filed under section 12 of the Act and no notice was served upon him, but the learned court below passed order against him, which is totally illegal and even then the recall application has been rejected. From perusal of the order dated 31.05.2014, it is evident that the learned court below proceeded in the matter ex-parte against the revisionists and their family members on the basis of presumption of service of notice which is illegal and the same is vitiated under law, as no opportunity of hearing is provided to the revisionist. Revisionist no. 2 is already regularly paying Rs. 3000/- to the respondent no. 2 under an order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in case no. 659 of 2012 filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, under section 125 Cr.P.C. The impugned orders of the courts below is contrary to record and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 gave an application before the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur under section 12 Domestic Violence Act for providing protection order and maintenance stating that she was married with opposite party no. 1 on 20.04.2006 according to Hindu rituals. Some times after marriage the opposite parties started mentally and physically harassing her, demanding Rs. 2 lakhs and a house in the name of opposite party no. 1, situated in Bharwaliya Bujurg. On 31.03.2009 son Arsh Kumar was born and after some time she was sent to her parents house and while going back, the opposite party (husband) repeated his demand of Rs. 2 lakhs. On being refused, he slapped her and twisted her hand due to which her bangles were broken and her hand started bleeding. The wife after some time came back to her matrimonial house and again opposite party started harassing her for dowry. On 20.04.2009, she and her son were forced to leave matrimonial house and her stri dhan was also taken by them. In the last week of April, 2012, opposite party (husband) came to her parents house and started talking with her