VANDANA AGGARWAL Vs. PRATIK GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner inter alia seeks setting aside of the judgment dtd. 21/10/2021 in Crl. Appeal No.54/2021 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [Hereinafter referred as "learned Appellate Court" ] and the order dtd. 8/4/2021 in Ct No.1611/2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila) Court, (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [ Hereinafter referred as "learned Magistrate"]

(2.) Briefly put, the marriage between the petitioner and the proforma respondent no.3 herein was solemnised on 26/12/2016 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. With the passage of time, the matrimonial relationship between the parties turned sour, and subsequently, as alleged by the petitioner, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home in December, 2019 and has since been residing separately. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Hereinafter referred as "DV Act" ] before the learned Magistrate, seeking various reliefs including protection order, residence order and maintenance. In the impugned order dtd. 8/4/2021 passed therein, summons were only issued to the proforma respondent nos.4 and 5 herein/ respondent nos. 2 and 3 therein, whereas, respondent nos.1 and 2 herein/ respondent nos. 4 and 5 therein [Hereinafter referred as "respondent nos. 1 and 2" ] were deleted from the array of parties. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 29 of the DV Act before the learned Appellate Court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dtd. 21/10/2021. Hence, challenging the order dtd. 8/4/2021 and the judgment dtd. 21/10/2021, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and the order submitted that the Courts below have passed the impugned judgment and order in a mechanical way without any application of mind. He submitted that the names of respondent nos.1 and 2 have been wrongly/ erroneously deleted from the array of the parties merely on the ground that the petitioner has not made any specific allegation qua them in the Domestic Incident Report [Hereinafter referred as "DIR" ]. The finding of the Courts below is completely perverse inasmuch as in DIR in para no.4(ii) under the head of 'Verbal and Emotional Abuse', the allegations against the respondent nos.1 and 2 are clearly mentioned against all of the respondents.