It is not statutory obligation Furnish Bail or Personal appearence in Dv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl.Misc.No.M-25966 of 2008.
Decided on: March 25, 2010.

Navrose Singh and others.. Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another.. Respondents
***
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI ***

PRESENT Mr.Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms.Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners seek quashing of proceedings under the complaint initiated by respondent No.2 Parminder Kaur, against the petitioners under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, inter alia, on the grounds that the proceedings have been initiated with an oblique motive to aggravate the agony by adding another litigation to the earlier cases filed by the respondent. Besides this, it has been argued that the ladies cannot be added as respondents in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as per definition of respondent under Section 2 (q) of the Act, which reads as follows: –
“respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.”
I have heard counsel for the petitioners as well counsel for the respondent.
The summoning order Annexure P-1, indicates that the petitioners have been merely summoned and given a liberty to either appear in person or through duly authorized counsel in the Court to show why the reliefs claimed by the respondent should not be granted. It is made clear that under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not statutory obligation of the respondents to personally appear before the Court or to furnish bail bonds for appearance. The appearance of respondents under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is not the requirement of law unless and until, the Court exercises discretion to direct the parties to appear in person for some specific purpose. It is the wish of the petitioners either to appear in person or engage a counsel and pursue the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali. It is also open to the petitioners to avoid the appearance on behalf of female respondents in the light of definition of respondent under Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, laid down in Ajay Kant and others Vs. Smt.Alka Sharma, 2007 (4) RCR (Crl.), Page 930. Disposed of.
(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
March 25, 2010.

READ  SC Judgement: No article return in bail proceedings

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *