C482/1608/2018 of ACHITANAND DABRAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Parties
- Since the alternative remedy u/s 29 of the Act is available to the applicant, the present applicant u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the direction that the applicant may file an appeal u/s (PETITIONER)
- Achitanand, shall remain stayed during that period (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1)
Statutes cited (2)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
C482 No.1608 of 2018 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, AGA for the State.
Mr. Rakshit Joshi, Advocate vice Mr. M.C.
Pant, Advocate for respondent no.2.
The applicant has prayed to quash the order dated 30.8.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.422 of 2018 by the Court of Fourth Addl. CJM, Dehradun u/s 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (to be referred as the Act hereinafter).
Respondent no.2 instituted the Misc. Case No.867 of 2016 which was decided ex parte and the judgment was pronounced on 22.5.2017 whereby the applicant was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no.2. Thereafter, respondent no.2 moved another application being Misc. Case No.422 of 2018 in which the Trial Court issued the recovery warrant against the applicant on 30.8.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the present application has been filed.
It is argued that the applicant was not aware about the proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 under the Act; and he was also unaware about filing of Misc. Case No.422/18 whereby the recovery warrant has been issued against the applicant.
Section 29 of the Act provides that there shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later. However, the applicant, instead of availing the remedy u/s 29 of the Act, has straightway knocked the doors of this Court.
Since the alternative remedy u/s 29 of the Act is available to the applicant, the present applicant u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the direction that the applicant may file an appeal u/s
29 of the Act before the Court of Session for setting aside the ex parte order dated 22.5.2017 passed by the Third Addl. CJM, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.867/16. If any such appeal is filed within one month from today, in that case, the execution of order dated 30.8.2018 passed by the Fourth Addl. CJM, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.422/18, Santoshi Dabral v. Achitanand, shall remain stayed during that period.
Limitation shall not come in the way of applicant since he was pursuing the litigation before this Court.
Rdang
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
01.07.2019