3.3 During the pendency of the proceedings, interim relief was given to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was directed to adduce evidence, in support of her application. The points of determination were framed, by the learned trial Court, on 06.01.2024. Thereafter, number of opportunities, were given to the applicant to lead evidence in order to sutbstantiate her stand.

3.5 On 31.01.2025, the learned trial Court has passed the following order:-

“No AW present. Time sought. Allowed. Let AWs be produced for cross-examination, on

07.03.2025. Last opportunity granted.”

3h.6 The said order has been passed in the presence gof learned Counsel for both the parties. On 07.03.2025, no ione has put appearance on behalf of the respondent, as such, learned trial Court has issued NBWs against the respondent for 07.04.2025. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 09.05.2025, on that day, the concerned Alhmad, has made the report that steps not taken. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has again passed the order directing that the presence of respondent be secured through NBW for 24.06.2025.

3.7 The said orders have now been assailed by the petitioners before this Court on the ground that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court i.e. issuance of NBW straight way is unknown to the law. In order to buttress his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Vtiolence Act, are civil in nature.

4. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to set aside the orders, as assailed, in this Court.

5. When put to notice, the applicant has not bothered to put appearance.

6h. Heard.

g7. In this case, learned trial Court has adopted the iprocedure, which is totally unknown to the law, as, in the absence of the respondent, the proper course to learned trial Court is to issue notices, thereafter issue bailable warrants and thereafter, if the presence of the respondent could not be secured, then the harsh order qua issuance of non bailable warrants could have been passed. Whereas, in the present case, the learned trial Court has straight away issued the non bailable warrants. The same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. In the absence of any findings, with regard to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, to issue non- bailable warrants, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decisiotn of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin versus State of Maharashtra & Another (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 791. Relevant paragraph 10 and 11 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

“10. It needs little emphasis that since the execution of a non-bailable warrant directly invo l 12 . In the absence of any findings, with regard to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, to issue non-bailable warrants, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin versus State of Maharashtra & Another (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 791 . Relevant paragraph 10 and 11 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

“10. It needs little emphasis that since the execution of a non-bailable warrant directly involves curtailment of liberty of a person, warrant of arrest cannot be issued mechanically, but only after recording satisfaction that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is warranted. The Courts have to be extra-cautious and careful while directing issue of non-bailable warrant, else a wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, there is no gainsaying that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. Therefore, in order to maintain rule of law and to keep the society in functional harmony, it is necessary to strike a balance between an indiv