LITU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, his client suffered domestic violence. As a consequence she filed petition under sec. 12(1), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petition was put up before S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar as M.C. no.01 of 2015, on 2/1/2015. He refers to order sheet annexed to show that till 23/4/2019, no report was received from the Protection Officer (PO). He submits, orders dtd. 5/4/2021 and thereafter records absence of his client and steps not taken. He submits, this should be viewed as his client being frustrated and obstructed from obtaining justice for domestic violence suffered. He relies on sub sec. (5) in sec. 12 as well as rules 5 and 8 in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2005.

(2.) Mr. Mund, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, he has received instruction from the PO. His client said that the case was transferred to a service provider and in the meantime the husband died.

(3.) Sub-sec. (5) in sec. 12 requires the Magistrate to dispose of any application made under sub-sec. (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing. It appears that the Magistrate intended to do so by acting under sub-sec. (1), in requiring report from the PO as on the date the petition put up, on 2/1/2015. Rule 5 requires the PO to prepare domestic incident report and submit to the Magistrate. Opposite party no.2 PO has clearly omitted to act. Said opposite party will file affidavit for consideration of Court regarding orders to be made on the petition.