Elvis Alban Afonso vs Elmas Fernandes

A.R. Joshi, J.—Heard rival arguments. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

This Criminal Writ Petition is preferred by the petitioner, husband challenging the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 43/2013. Said appeal was filed by present respondent, wife who is the original petitioner in the application preferred before the Trial Court u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The issue in the present matter is very small and in fact it is ascertained by this Court that the entire Writ Petition can be disposed of by this order and certain directions can be given to the trial Court to dispose of the main criminal case no. AOA/176/2013/C within the specified time. As such, expeditious disposal of application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is the mandate of the law as mentioned in Section 12(5) of the said Act. Said Section 12(5) reads thus:

12(5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

It is apparent that after filing the application by the present respondent, wife for various reliefs including the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from her husband the matter lingered before the trial Court and the interim orders were passed thereby directing the present petitioner, husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the wife until the disposal of the main petition. Without going into much details as to the other directions given, suffice it to say that being aggrieved by the said interim order wife preferred criminal appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji being Criminal Appeal No. 43/2012 and said appeal was allowed and the interim maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month. In fact, by way of this order which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, the entire maintenance finally claimed in the main petition before the trial Court was allowed.

Though it is argued on behalf of petitioner and respondent on the merits of passing the said order in appeal, it is though fit by this Court to give suitable directions to the Trial Court to expeditiously deal and dispose of the main petition filed by the wife so as to put rest the controversy between the parties and to cut short the litigation time and also the expenses of the litigation by the petitioner and the respondent. Moreover, now the question remains whether the impugned order is required to be stayed or not. On this aspect, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact by the impugned order the entire prayer for the maintenance asked before the Trial Court is granted by the appellate Court and it is unwarranted under the fact situation of the case. Counter to these arguments learned Counsel for the respondent, wife stated that if the present impugned order is stayed it will give a wrong message to the trial Court indicating that the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- is not just to be payable to the wife. In any way, considering both these submissions and considering that this Court is giving a time bound programme to the Trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, the said impugned order is required to be stayed. Needless to mention that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the stay or otherwise of the impugned order and shall deal with the main petition filed by the respondent, wife in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with following order:

(i) Rule stands discharged.

(ii) The impugned order is stayed.

(iii) Directions are given to the Trial Court to dispose of the main petition filed by the present respondent, wife being criminal case no. AOA/176/2013/C as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of writ of this order.

Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed off.