The court allows a revision petition due to insufficient opportunity to contest an order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

O R D E R

Under challenge in this revision petition is the order passed against the revision petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as confirmed by the appellate court.

2. The revision petitioner is the 1^st respondent in M.C.

No. 41 of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kasaragod. M.C. No. 41 of 2011 arises out of an application filed under Section 12 of the Act, filed by the 1st respondent herein. By order dated 30.09.2011, the M.C. was allowed and the revision petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,42,500/- towards value of 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments, Rs.15,000/- towards value of a Rado watch and another Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1^st respondent herein. The revision petitioner was also ordered to pay Rs.1,500/- each as maintenance to the

1^st respondent herein and her child.

3. Even though, the revision petitioner challenged the order passed in M.C. No. 41 of 2011, by filing Crl.A. No. 19 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) III, Kasaragod, the same ended in dismissal.

4. Heard Sri. P.Martin Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. There is no representation for the 1^st respondent. Perused the records.

5. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner was not afforded sufficient time and opportunity to contest the matter before the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the entire proceedings were done in a haste, and the proceedings sheet would show that, within 3-4 months, the M.C. has been disposed of. He also submitted that huge amounts have been directed to be paid by the revision petitioner to the 1^st respondent without any evidence. Hence, he prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the revision petitioner to contest the matter on merits.

6. On going through the proceedings sheet in the trial court, I find considerable force in submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. The proceedings go to show that on 08.06.2011 and 06.07.2011 even though the 1^st respondent herein was present, revision petitioner was absent. On 13.07.2011, both the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent herein were present, and the matter was posted for recording evidence since, no counter was filed by revision petitioner. On 03.08.2011, the case was adjourned for evidence to 07.09.2011 and on that day, due to the absence of the 1^st respondent, it was adjourned to 28.09.2011. On that day, the evidence of PW1 is seen recorded and the matter taken up for orders. Later, on 30.09.2011, noting that both sides are absent, orders have been pronounced.

7. The entire proceedings as narrated afore shows that the trial court was in a haste to dispose of the case. It is to be seen that after recording the evidence of PW1, the matter has been straight away taken up for orders, even without granting an opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce evidence and hearing both sides. It is to be taken note that the revision petitioner had in fact appeared in the M.C and had participated in the proceedings on two days and therefore, it cannot be stated that he was not diligently prosecuting the matter. 8. Hence, considering all the afore facts including the fact that the first respondent herein has not put in appearance and opposed this Criminal Revision Petition and the stakes involved in the matter, I am of the view that the revision petitioner can be given an opportunity to contest MC No.41 of

2011 on merits, subject to terms. I am thus of the view that after setting aside the impugned judgment and order, the matter can be remanded bac