IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-50534-2025 Date of decision: 10.09.2025 Vijay Kumar Soni ....Petitioner versus Beena Devi and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Nipun Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J.

1. Order dated 01.08.2025 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2025 and order dated 10.01.2025 of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Charkhi Dadri, allowing complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been impugned by way of this petition under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the proceeding under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), petitioner and his mother were illegally proceeded against ex parte on 01.02.2024. The ex parte order was passed in spite of presence of counsel for petitioner. Subsequently, an application was moved for setting aside the ex parte order which was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2024 subject to payment of 50% arrears to the complainant. It was urged that though petitioner’s father was ready to make payment of 50% arrears, he was rebuked by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class when he asked for quantifying the amount. On 24.10.2024, petitioner’s application for depositing the amount was thrown away by the Court and ex parte evidence was recorded. Finally, ex parte arguments were heard and impugned order dated 10.01.2025 was passed.

3. Learned Counsel further argued that an appeal against the ex parte order dated 10.01.2025 was filed before learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was fixed for hearing on 02.08.2025. On 02.08.2025, learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in the account of respondent as a condition precedent to hearing of the appeal. Therefore, both orders dated

10.01.2025 and 02.08.2025 deserved to be set aside.

4. Record perused. Complaint under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 was instituted by Beena Devi, respondent herein against petitioner Vijay Kumar Soni and his mother Sheela Devi. In that case, interim maintenance was awarded. Petitioner Vijay Kumar Soni preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act 2005 against the order granting interim maintenance. The appeal was, however, dismissed on 27.05.2025, having become infructuous. Meanwhile, in the complaint under Section 12 of the Act, respondents Nos.1 and 2 (petitioner and respondent No.2 herein) were proceeded against ex parte on 01.02.2024.

5. On 03.04.2024, when conditional warrants of arrest against Vijay Kumar were received back unexecuted, application was moved for setting aside the ex parte order dated 01.02.2024. Vide order dated 02.09.2024, the application was allowed subject to payment of 50% arrears to the complainant as existing that day. The case was adjourned to

11.10.2024 for awaiting further orders of the revisional Court. On 11.10.2024, 50% arrears were not paid by respondent Vijay Kumar. Case was adjourned to 24.10.2024, and on that day ex parte evidence of the petitioner was recorded. After hearing ex parte arguments, the complaint was decided on 10.01.2025. Following orders were passed.

‘‘i. Order under Section 18 of the Act: The respondents are prohibited to commit any act of domestic violence against the complainant.

ii. Order under Section 19 of the Act: The respondent No.1 is ordered to provide separate accommodation to the applicant at the place of shared household or in alternate to pay monthly rent for the accommodation of the applicant at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, to be operative from the date of order. Besides, the respondent No.1 is ordered to pay one time reasonable litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- to the applicant.

iii. Order under Section 20 of the Act: The respondent No.1 is ordered to pay a monthly monet