RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the relevant provisions of law, it is noticed that albeit, the petitioner has impugned the orders dated 23.05.2009 and 29.09.2009 rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial No.6, Jaipur City Jaipur and Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 9, Jaipur city, Jaipur respectively but he has concentrated his arguments only on one issue and prayed that the learned trial court should be directed not to pass any interim order with regard to maintenance sans affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and recording their evidence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further canvassed that both the parties have been living separately for the last 15 years and that time, the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act was not in force. The provisions of this Act cannot be made applicable retrospectively. It is noticed that the petitioner questioned the maintainability of the complaint at the very outset when the same was filed before the court. Learned trial court is not found to have drawn any proceeding in this case. Both the learned courts below have observed that at that stage, the complaint could not be abandoned as no evidence from any side was produced before the court.

(3.) Without expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the complaint pending before the learned trial court, I feel just and inclined to merely observe that learned trial court shall not pass any order with regard to maintenance and residence without recording the evidence and affording the opportunity of being heard to both the parties.