Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Ramesh Chandra Shukla vs Geeta Shukla on 12 August, 2015

     IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
           PC ACT, CBI­III, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

Criminal Appeal No. 51/15

             Ramesh Chandra Shukla                    .........Petitioner

                    Vs.

             Geeta Shukla                             ........Respondent

File received on assignment on :31.07.2015
Argument heard on              :11.08.2015
Order announced on             :12.08.2015

JUDGMENT:

1. This is an appeal against the ex­parte judgment dated 25.7.2014 passed by MM, Mahila Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'DV Act') was disposed of by granting Rs. 15000/­ pm as the maintenance for respondent and her minor child from the date of filing of petition till the time the respondent is legally entitled to receive the same from appellant.

2. The marriage of the parties and birth of a male child are not in dispute. However, the appellant has denied the allegations of domestic Criminal Appeal No. 51/15 Page 1 of 4 Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Geeta Shukla.

violence levelled against him.

3. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that he was never served with the summons of the Court at any point of time and the report of the refusal is false, fabricated and manipulated by the postman who is also residing in the same village and is having a personal grudge against the appellant and his family members. It is alleged that appellant came to know about the filing of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act after warrants of attachment were issued by the Court of Ld. MM, Delhi on the execution petition filed by the respondent. It has been prayed that a chance be given to the appellant to contest the application and the impugned judgment be set aside.

4. I have heard Sh. Narvdeshwar Pathak, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Shailender Dhaia, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that not granting an opportunity to contest the application under DV Act will cause a grave injustice to the appellant. Though appellant got registered himself as lawyer in 2005 but he is only a poor labourer working in the fields. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended Criminal Appeal No. 51/15 Page 2 of 4 Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Geeta Shukla.

that the appellant was rightly proceeded ex­parte as he refused to receive the summons. Ld. Counsel has contended that the present appeal cannot be heard without first an order is passed by the Court directing the appellant to pay the arrears. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment­Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika, MANU/DE/1238/2009.

6. I have gone through the trial court record. As per report of postman, the appellant refused to accept the Registered AD letter on 15.07.2013 sent by the Court for the date 29.08.2013.

7. It is the settled law that nobody should be condemned unheard. Appellant has not denied his marriage and birth of a son. As per appellant, he was never served with the summons and the report of refusal by the postman is false. However, he has not named the postman enimical to him in the appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice if the impugned judgment is set aside subject to payment of 40% of the maintenance awarded by the trial court to respondent vide impugned judgment i.e. Rs.6000/­ pm w.e.f. date of filing application u/s 12 of DV Act till date. The said amount be paid/deposited before the trial court within one month from today. In case the appellant fails to pay the respondent or deposit the said amount in the Court, the respondent shall Criminal Appeal No. 51/15 Page 3 of 4 Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Geeta Shukla.

have every right to proceed with her execution petition. It is clarified that the amount, if so deposited by the appellant, shall be adjustable at the time of deciding the application for interim maintenance u/s 23 of the DV Act.

8. With the above­said directions, present appeal stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before trial court on 13.08.2015. Trial Court Record be sent back with a copy of the judgment and appeal file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced today (Praveen Kumar) in open court on 12.08.2015. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI­III, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

Criminal Appeal No. 51/15 Page 4 of 4 Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Geeta Shukla.