High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 RAJ CK 0105

Rajni Sharma And Ors vs Mahesh Kumar Rajoria And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 26 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satish Kumar Sharma, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1589 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 326 words
1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents for which defects have been pointed out are not relevant for disposal of this petition, therefore the same should be waived.

2.

For the reasons mentions in the application and in view of the above submissions, the application is allowed and the defects pointed pointed out by the office are waived.

3.

This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 2-8-2019 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases) Jaipur, vide which restoration application to restore the complaint No.68/2013 has been dismissed.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application filed by the petitioners for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act has been dismissed in default and the restoration application has also been dismissed in mechanical manner without considering the fact that the non-petitioners did not put their appearance and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. The petitioner No.1 is a poor lady, who could not get even a single penny from non-petitioners. Since the original application transferred to several courts, she could not get information about transfer of the original application. In the interest of justice the petition deserves to be allowed.

5.

Heard. Considered.

6.

Since non-petitioners have not put their appearance in the original application filed by the petitioners for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, no notices against them are required.

7.

Admittedly the matter has been transferred to other courts. The non-petitioners even did not care to appear before the court despite service of notices and ultimately ex-parte proceedings were ordered against them. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners regarding miserable condition of the petitioners is also worth consideration. Therefore to meet ends of justice this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2-8-2019 is quashed and set aside. The learned trial court is directed to restore the case to its original number and proceed further in accordance with law.