JUDGMENT

Rajendra Kumar (Verma), J. - This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29/11/2022, passed by the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Cri.A. No.319/2022 dismissing the criminal appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the order dated 20/04/2022 and 12/07/2022 passed in MJCR No.35/2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore whereby, the learned JMFC, Indore has closed the right to file reply of the application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005( in short ..... "the Act, 2005").

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the respondent was solemnized with the petitioner as per Hindu Rites. After her marriage, the respondent had some difference of opinion and found difficult in adjusting with the family of the petitioner and, therefore, the couples are residing separately. In order to create undue pressure and harass him, the respondent filed various cases against the petitioner at Indore and out of them, one is the present case filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. The petitioner is based at Mumbai and after receipt of the summons, the petitioner engaged an advocate to defend the case before the learned trial Court. On 23/03/2022, the learned trial Court granted last opportunity to file reply to the application under Section 23 of the Act, 2005. Since the stage of the case for filing the reply and Vakalatnama on the next date of hearing i.e. 20/04/2022 was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, therefore, the same could not be filed on 20/04/2022. The counsel for the petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court on 20/04/2022 and sought time to file reply but the leaned trial Court closed the right to file reply to the application under Section 23 of the Act, 2005.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are illegal as the learned appellate Court did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner has a strong prima facie case in his favour and if the opportunity to file reply to the application under Section 23 of the Act, 2005 granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. It is further submitted that the non-appearance of the petitioner and the counsel is bonafide and not intentional. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing for smooth and speedy trial of the case and undertakes that no unnecessary adjournment shall be taken on his behalf. However, it is prayed that an opportunity to file reply to the application under Section 23 of the Act, 2005 be granted to the petitioner.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 29/11/2022 and 20/04/2022. By way of last indulgence, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file reply to the application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited with the District Legal Aid Service Authority, Indore.

6. The trial Court shall fix a date in this regard. No further adjournment shall be granted on any false or frivolous ground for filing reply. After completion of the due procedure, the trial Court shall pass an order according to the law.

7. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed.

Certified copy, as per rules.