Gauhati High Court
Smti. Hema Prava Devi vs Rupak Mahanta on 29 October, 2019
Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010100562019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 510/2019
1:SMTI. HEMA PRAVA DEVI
D/O LATE LOHIT NARAYAN DEV, R/O HOUSE NO. 36, SHANTI PATH., R.G.
BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI, P.S.-GEETANAGAR, DIST-KAMRUP(M),
ASSAM, PIN-781024
VERSUS
1:RUPAK MAHANTA
S/O LATE RATNAPATI MAHANTA, R/O HOUSE NO. 36, SHANTI PATH., R.G.
BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI, P.S.-GEETANAGAR, DIST-KAMRUP(M),
ASSAM, PIN-781024
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K BARMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 29-10-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. As the parties has entered their appearance and insisted to dispose of the matter at this stage itself as several round of litigation is going on between the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal.
The petitioner herein has filed this application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 challenging DV Case No.124M/2009 before the court of learned Page No.# 2/3 JMFC, Kamrup (Guwahati) and the said case was also contested by the other side. Initially by order dated 01.12.2009, the court passed interim relief directing the respondent to comply with the same. Subsequently, on the prayer made by the respondent for modification of the order, the learned trial court dispose of the same on 15.03.2010 with modification of the interim order dated 01.12.2009. The respondent herein preferred an appeal against the said order being dissatisfied with the same, vide criminal appeal No.26/2010. The learned appellate court disposed of the same on 11.07.2012 with a direction that the respondent will not enter into the second floor of the apartment where the aggrieved parties is residing claiming the same to be her portion of shared house, with further direction to the court to allow the parties to adduce evidence to substantiate their claim/counter claim. Thereafter, raising the matter of property dispute, the respondent herein came with another petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the learned appellate court in Crl. Appeal No.62/2015 whereby the appellate court has affirmed the order of the learned trial court in the aforesaid DV case No.124(M)/2009 wherein the learned trial court came to the finding that the property dispute is of civil nature and criminal court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the same and needs to be decided by the civil court on the said petition, this court in its judgment dated 22.02.2017 held in para 15 that the court is not empowered to order for eviction of the respondent/wife from the room situated on the terrace of the building and for the same, parties have to approach to the civil court. With the aforesaid finding, the petition was disposed of.
After such long litigation, the said petition under DV Act was taken up by the trial court for disposal by its order dated 18.01.2019 by referring to all the above and has now directed the petitioner to adduce evidence on affidavit on the petition she filled with an observation that Page No.# 3/3 the court will now deal with the merit of the case with regard to the reliefs claimed under Section 22 for grant of compensation and damages to the aggrieved party. On careful examination of various orders annexed with the petition as well submission from the learned counsels of both the parties it reveals that the aforesaid DV case is still not preceded to its conclusion, as at the initial stage against the order of interim relief the parties entered into various litigations when the main petition is still pending. It is incumbent now on the part of the learned trial court to proceed with the main petition and accordingly the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 has been passed and the trial court is intend to proceed with the petition filed by the petitioner. I find no irregularity and illegality in the aforesaid order, to interfere into.
Needless to say that a party to a petition only lead his/her evidence in support of the content of the petition within the purview of the Act and accordingly the petitioner can adduce her evidence in support of the petition and the respondent is also entitle to adduce his evidence in rebuttal.
There being no merit in the petition, same is dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant