JYOTI AND ANOTHER Vs. KULDEEP VAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind (Shri R.C.Vashney) setting aside the order dated 4.10.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhind in Misc. Criminal Case No.117/2010, whereby the respondent was directed to be present on every date of hearing in the Court to meet her daughter and it was also ordered that the respondent attend a parents meeting in the petitioner's No.2 school.

(2.) The following admitted facts have come on record that - the petitioner No.1, a Patwari, is the wife of the respondent and petitioner No.2 is a 6 years old daughter. Petitioners have filed a petition under Sections 12, 20 and 22 of Domestic Violence & Women Protection Act, 2005 against the respondent pending before the Court of J.M.F.C. Bhind bearing Case No.117/2010. The petitioner No.1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right before the Court of District Judge, Bhind bearing Case No.32/10 which was rejected vide judgment dated 2.7.12. The respondent has filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is pending before the Court. In the course of pendency the Misc. Criminal Case No.117/10, the respondent filed some applications for issuing direction to the petitioner No.1 to permit him to meet his daughter, however, the applications were opposed by the petitioner No.1 but permission was granted vide order dated 15.7.10. Subsequently by mutual consensus of both the parties, vide order dated 20.9.10 it was directed by the Court that the respondent is permitted to meet his daughter on every Sunday between 8 to 12 AM at the residence of petitioner No.1 at Gwalior.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner again filed an application before the Court of J.M.F.C. Bhind with a request that the petitioner No.2, daughter of the respondent, wants to meet her father and so the respondent be directed to present in the Court personally on each and every hearing and be directed to attend the parents meeting in the school. That application was allowed vide order dated 4.10.12 which was set aside by the impugned order dated 17.12.12 by the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that where the order dated 20.9.10 was already passed with the consent of both the parties for the respondent to meet his daughter on every Sunday and so there was no need to pass the order dated 4.10.12 by the trial Court.