NIRANJAN Vs. PRITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are formal parties and he wants to delete the said Respondents from the array of the Respondents. Leave granted. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Petitioner-husband of Respondent No. 1, complainant who is facing proceedings under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("Domestic Violence Act" in brief), has filed this Petition as his application Exhibit 47 filed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1078 of 2012 has been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Aurangabad by order dated 10th March, 2014.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, vide Exhibit 47, the Petitioner had pointed out that he wanted to examine certain witnesses. According to the counsel, witness No. 1 Phulchand Chandrakant Jain was, as claimed by the Respondent No. 1 - complainant, mediator in the marriage and witness No. 3 Pramod Chandranath Tandure was writer of the VIVAH YADI (List of terms regarding what is settled at the time of finalization of marriage). Learned counsel submitted that Pramod Tandure was scribe of marriage list and so the Petitioner wanted to examine him. Counsel submitted that looking to the case of Respondent No. 1 regarding what all happened at the time of honeymoon trip, in defence Petitioner wanted to examine Abhishek Sansare, who was the organizer of the tour and was with the parties at the time when the parties went from place to place for honeymoon.