IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 19.12.2025 Puneet Bansal ..... Petitioner VERSUS Preeti Bansal and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate and Ms. Himani Jamwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kshitij Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Ajey Bishnoi, Advocate for the respondents.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner Puneet Bansal filed present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of order dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby criminal appeal preferred by petitioner against order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure P-5), for setting aside exparte order dated 09.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, assailed by filing appeal under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act alongwith application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been dismissed without considering the facts and circumstances of case, with a prayer for decision of case by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda on merits or any other direction which the Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of case.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 1 on 30.11.2010. Out of this wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters. Matrimonial dispute started. Respondent No. 1-wife filed petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, levelling false allegations. Copy of complaint bearing registration No. COMA/5283/2018 is Annexure P-1. Petitioner-husband was proceeded against exparte and learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda passed exparte order dated 09.05.2019 (Annexure P-2). Present petitioner had filed separate application for setting aside exparte order dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure P-4), which was again declined vide order dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure P-5). Feeling aggrieved of that order, present petitioner filed appeal under Section 29 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against exparte order dated 08.02.2021 in CIS No. CRM-746-2019 for setting aside exparte order dated 21.02.2019 and final exparte order dated 09.05.2019. Copy of appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay is Annexure P-6. There is another application under Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for modification/alteration/revocation of final exparte maintenance (Annexure P-7). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda dismissed the application for condonation of delay by passing impugned order dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) without considering the facts and circumstances of case. It is pointed out that mother of petitioner was unwell for last many years who unfortunately expired on 12.08.2021. Copy of her Death Certificate is Annexure P-8. He further lost his job, termination order is Annexure P-3. Application filed by petitioner seeking condonation of delay was declined on the ground that it was cryptic and no ground was given to condone the delay in filing appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda has declined application seeking condonation of delay on hyper technical ground. It is submitted that impugned order dated 22.11.2022 may kindly be set aside and delay may kindly be condoned in filing the appeal and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda may be directed to decide the case on merits.

3. Learned counsel representing respondents argued that present petitioner is making every possible effort to delay the proceedings before the trial Court. Initially, he was proceeded against exparte on 21.02.2019 and case was decided exparte by trial Court vide order dated 09.05.2019 (Annexure P-2). Appeal was filed alongwith application seeking condonation of delay but no ground was explained. Petitioner was bound to explain delay of each and every day in filing the appeal late. Application filed by petitio