ARCHANA AMIT SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-original complainant in which the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 23rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vadodara below application Exh.17 submitted by the petitioner as well as the order dtd. 25/10/2019 passed by the 5 th Additional District and Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Revision Application No.125 of 2019.

(2.) Heard the petitioner Ms.Archana Amit Shah and respondent no.2 Mr.Amit Hasmukhbhai Shah in person and learned APP for respondent-state.

(3.) The petitioner has mainly submitted that the petitioner is the wife of respondent no.2. She has preferred application under Sec. 12 of the The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (' Domestic Violence Act ' for short) before the concerned Magistrate Court. It is submitted that before preparing affidavit for examination-in- chief, the present petitioner had stated all the relevant facts to her advocate and handed over all the original documents to him. Thereafter, the said advocate had prepared affidavit of examination-in-chief of the petitioner and the petitioner was called to verify the details. The petitioner visited the office of the concerned advocate to verify the affidavit and it was found that certain relevant and material information is not stated by the advocate while preparing the said affidavit. The petitioner, therefore, informed her advocate accordingly. The concerned advocate, thereafter, assured that he will do the needful and he will prepare fresh affidavit of examination in chief of the petitioner. The petitioner was, thereafter, called on the date of hearing before the Court and the said advocate submitted affidavit for examination in chief of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that though she has pointed out to her advocate necessary details, they were not incorporated in the affidavit for examination in chief of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed application and produced additional affidavit for examination in chief before the concerned Magistrate Court. However, the concerned Magistrate passed the impugned order and rejected the said additional affidavit for examination-in-chief on the ground that there is no provision for filing additional affidavit. It is also observed that the petitioner is intentionally delaying the matter.