CRL. M.C. 2501/2023

Page 1 of 7

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 17.08.2023

Pronounced on: 12.10.2023

+

CRL.M.C.

2501/2023

&

CRL.M.A.

9498/2023

&

CRL.M.A. 11853/2023

SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. D.P. Kaushik, Advocate

versus

DR. SHRUTI SINGH

..... Respondent

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

The instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution

of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 („Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed on behalf petitioner assailing the

judgment dated 19.12.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge-02, South-West District, Dwarka, Delhi in Criminal Appeal

no. 189/2022 filed under Section 29 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence, 2005 („DV Act‟).

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:14.10.2023

19:00:05

Signature Not Verified

CRL. M.C. 2501/2023

Page 2 of 7

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the marriage

between petitioner no. 1 and respondent was solemnized on

17.04.2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. During the course of

time, respondent had filed petitions seeking divorce alongwith

petitions for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground

that petitioners had forced her to quit her studies, had abused her, had

physically assaulted her, and also had demanded dowry. It is also

alleged that petitioner no. 1 had attempted to kill respondent,

however, all the petitions were dismissed. On 03.01.2011, the

respondent/wife had filed a complaint under Section 12 of DV Act

against petitioners herein. The petitioners had filed an application

under Section 9 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 („CPC‟) seeking dismissal of complaint under Section 12 DV

Act filed by respondent however, the learned Trial Court had

dismissed the application on 10.08.2011. The learned Trial Court in

order dated 11.11.2013 had passed an order rejecting the arguments

on maintainability and held that there was no ground to dismiss the

complaint filed by respondent. On 04.01.2014, petitioners had filed

an appeal under Section 29 of DV Act against the order dated

11.11.2013 which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide

order dated 11.07.2017. Thereafter again, the Appellate Court had

dismissed the review application preferred by petitioners vide order

dated 31.08.2017. The petitioners had filed an appeal under Section

29 of DV Act against respondent which was dismissed vide

impugned order dated 19.12.2022.

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:14.10.2023

19:00:05

Signature Not Verified

CRL. M.C. 2501/2023

Page 3 of 7

3.

Learned counsel for petitioners states that the learned Trial

Court or Appellate Court had not decided the issue of maintainability.

The learned Trial Court had decided application under Section 23 of

DV Act moved by respondent despite it being not maintainable. It is

stated that learned Trial Court had not applied its judicial mind while

passing the impugned order. It is also stated that respondent had

concealed the documents revealing her income and employment

status alongwith other litigation documents. It is further stated that

learned Trial Court had not considered the grounds led on record by

the petitioners and, therefore, the impugned judgment be set aside.

4.

Despite service, the respondent did not file reply nor anyone

appeared on her behalf to address arguments.

5.

This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of learned

counsel of petitioner and have perused the material on record.

6.

At the outset, it would be appropriate to look into the provision

of Section 23 of DV Act which reads as under:

“23. Power to grant interim and ex parte orders. —

(1) In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate

may pass such interim order as he deems just a