SAKUNTHALA Vs. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order made in Unnumbered Cr.Appeal No. - - of 2010 dated 11.06.2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, which was filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Villupuram, in MC No.1/2009 dated 06.04.2010.

(2.) THE petitioner is the mother -in -law of the 1st respondent herein and mother of the 2nd respondent. The first respondent filed MC.No.1/2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Villupuram, wherein she made several prayers including the prayer for shared residence. The Court below disposed of the matter by issuing certain directions by order dated 06.04.2010. In terms of section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner being aggrieved, is entitled to file an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The Trial Court passed the order on 06.04.2010 and on the same date, the petitioner is said to have received the certified copy of the order. The petitioner presented the appeal before the Appellate Court on 31.05.2010, i.e., after reopening of the Court after the summer vacation. The Appellate Court failed to entertain the appeal on the ground that it has been filed beyond the period of limitation. The Court below observed that the petitioner having received the certified copy of the order dated 06.04.2010, did not prefer an appeal after a period of 23 days and preferred the same only on the date of reopening and therefore, the appeal is time barred. In this regard, reference was made to section 29 of the Act. Challenging the order of the Lower Appellate Court, refusing to take on file the appeal, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) SECTION 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, states that there shall lie an appeal to the Court of Sessions within 30 days form the date of which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later. The section, therefore, provides for an appeal and the period of limitation to be reckoned from 30 days from the date of service of the order on the aggrieved person or the respondent whichever is later. It is not in dispute that the petitioner received the certified copy of the order on 06.04.2010 and the period of 30 days shall start running from the said date excluding the date of receipt. During the period of limitation, i.e., during the 30 days period, the summer vacation intervened. Therefore, the petitioner did not prefer the appeal before the Vacation Court; but preferred the same on the reopening day, viz., on 31.05.2010. Therefore, if the period of limitation falls within the period of summer vacation, then the period stands excluded and if the petitioner has presented the appeal on the reopening day, it is definitely not barred by limitation. It may be true that the Criminal Courts do not have any vacation. But, nevertheless, this is the right conferred by a Special Statute and the right of appeal is a very valuable right. Even assuming the principles that can be applied falling u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, can be extended, especially when there is no outer time limit or a condonable limit prescribed under the Statute, as found in other Statutes like the Tamil Nadu Buildings and Lease Control Act, The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, Central Excise Act, etc. In such circumstances, the Court below ought to have numbered the appeal and ought to have issued notice to the respondents to hear the matter on merits.