PRAMOD WASNIK Vs. ANITA WASNIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No.35/2019, by which the order of the J.M.F.C. Jagdalpur, Bastar dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. was dismissed, was upheld.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed an application under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short 'the Act of 2005'). The petitioner challenged the maintainability of that application by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. stating that he and the respondent are not married to each other, therefore, the application filed under the provision of Domestic Violence or D.V. Act of 2005 was not maintainable. The trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 21.02.2019. That order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No.35/2019 before the Court of Sessions Judge and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously held that the matter before the J.M.F.C. is a criminal procedure in which the provision under C.P.C. and specific provision under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. are not applicable. It is submitted that clearly the proceeding under the Act of 2005 are deemed to be of quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature.

(3.) Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in T. Nagappa Vs. Y. R. Muralidhar, 2008 5 SCC 633, that merely by mentioning and incorporating provision of law, which is incorrect provision of law, that Court if has jurisdiction, cannot refuse to pass proper order.