VIKRAM B. MITTADHAR Vs. ANANTHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 675/2011 on the file of Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore (FTC No. VI), has come up in this proceeding challenging the order dated 01.12.2011 in dismissing his application filed in I.A.I. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently, dismissing I.A. II and the said appeal.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , petitioner herein, appellant in Crl. A. No. 675/2011 was 1st accused in Crl. Misc. No. 308/2011 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court -II, Bangalore, initiated by the respondent herein, complainant, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.V. Act'). Admittedly, petitioner herein is the husband and respondent herein is the wife. Petition, which is filed by the wife in Crl. Misc. No. 308/20.11 came to be allowed by order dated 20.08.2011, wherein the learned Magistrate ordered for payment of maintenance to the wife at Rs. 5,000/ - per month from the date of petition and during her life time as also a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation. The said order was challenged by the 1st accused, petitioner herein, in Crl. A. No. 675/2011. It is submitted that since the said appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, application in I.A.I. was filed seeking condonation of delay.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of K.M. Revanasiddeshwara Vs. Smt. K.M. Shylaja reported in : 2012(3) Crimes 725, wherein it is held that the provisions of Section 29(3) of the D.V. Act would not operate as a bar for filing application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to seek condonation of delay, if any, in filing an appeal under Section 29 of the Act. Based on the said ratio, the said matter was decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court.