Sanjeev Banty vs Anuradha

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—1. Present revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No. 611/2014 dated 20.02.2015 and the judgment of the trial Court passed in Crl. Misc. No. 197/2012 dated 6.5.2014.

Petitioner is the legally wedded husband of the respondent herein. Respondent was the petitioner in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ''the Act'') before the learned MMTC-III, Bangalore. Petitioner herein was the respondent No. 1 in the said case.

Parties will be referred to as petitioner and respondent No. 1 as per their ranking before the trial Court.

Petitioner had filed an application under Section 12 of the Act seeking certain monetary reliefs and also protection order. The marriage of the petitioner had been solemnized with respondent No. 1 on 03.12.2007 as per the Hindu customs and they have a female child out of their marital relationship. Since the respondent No. 1 did not look after the petitioner and her child, she had filed a petition seeking monetary relief to an extent of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance, Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation and a separate house for her residence. Before the said petition under Section 12 of the Act, respondent No. 1 had chosen to file a petition seeking divorce of his marital relationship with the petitioner in M.C. No. 2143/2009 before the Family Court at Bangalore. The said petition filed under Section 12 of the Act was filed, contested and ultimately, petitioner was examined as PW-1. She has got marked 5 exhibits on her behalf. Respondent No. 1 did not choose to lead any evidence. Ultimately, petition came to be allowed on 06.05.2014 directing the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as maintenance per month to the petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to her daughter and also Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation. It is this order, which was challenged in the appeal under Section 29 of the Act before the FTC-IV, Bangalore City. The said Crl.ANo.611/2014 is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. It is these concurrent findings which are called in question on various grounds as set out in the revision petition.

One of the main grounds urged in the petition is that no opportunity was given to the respondent -husband to completely cross examine PW-1 and to lead evidence on his behalf. It is stated that principles of natural justice have not been followed by both the Courts.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties have submitted their arguments at length.

After going through the records of both the cases, following points arise for consideration.

"1. Whether the trial Court was justified in deciding the matter without giving an opportunity to the respondent No. 1 therein to lead evidence?

Whether any interference is called for by this Court, if so, to what extent?"

Point No. 1: As could be seen from the lower Court records, PW-1 was cross examined at length on 28.11.2013, 07.12.2013, 04.01.2014, 28.01.2014, 25.02.2014 and 02.04.2014. The cross examination runs to 20 pages. Number of adjournments had been obtained to cross examine PW-1. Case had been posted on 04.04.2014. Neither the counsel, nor the respondent was present on that date and hence the case was posted for judgment. Sufficient opportunity had been given to cross examine PW-1. In fact, an opportunity should have been given for the Advocates at least to submit their arguments. Nothing would have been happened if an adjournment would had been granted to enable the respondent No. 1 therein to adduce his evidence in support of the defence taken in his objection filed to the main petition.

Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. These principles have been clearly reiterated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of CANARA BANK v. V.K. AWASTHY - , 2005 (6) SCC 321.

Natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It is therefore open to the Court to develop new principles of natural justice in appropriate cases.

In the case of KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS v. B.M. VIJAYA SHANKAR AND OTHERS - , (1992) 2 SCC 206, the Bench consisting of three Hon''ble Judges of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it is held that Natural justice is a concept which has succeeded in keeping the arbitrary action within limits and preserving the rule of law.

In this view of the matter, the approach adopted by the trial Court is incorrect and improper. Serious aspect has not been looked into by the First Appellate Court while reassessing the evidence placed on record. In this view of the matter, both the Courts have adopted wrong approach to the real state of affairs by not observing the principles of natural justice. Hence, point No. 1 is answered in the Negative.

Point No. 2: In the light of the opportunity being denied to the respondent No. 1 therein to lead evidence, the matter may be remitted to the trial Court to give an opportunity to the petitioner herein to lead evidence subject to certain conditions. Hence, the following:

ORDER

Revision petition is allowed. The judgments of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are set aside.

Matter is remitted to the trial Court to give an opportunity to the respondent No. 1 therein i.e., revision petitioner to lead evidence on his behalf.

Parties to appear before the trial Court on 15.02.2016 at 11.00 a.m. without fail and the learned Judge to dispose of the entire matter within two months from 15.02.2016.

It is made clear that the petitioner should go on paying a sum of Rs. 15,000/-maintenance as awarded by the trial Court till the disposal of the matter by the trial Court.

Petitioner should also continue to pay the rent of the house in which the respondent herein i.e., his wife is living at Bangalore.

It is also made clear that all the arrears of maintenance as ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court will have to be deposited or paid on or before 04.02.2016 in the trial Court by the petitioner herein and in such an event, the respondent herein is at liberty to withdraw the same.

If for any reason, the revision petitioner herein were to failed to comply with the conditions imposed on him by this Court, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court along with the LCR immediately.

Parties and counsel to co-operate with the court in disposing of the case within the time stipulated by this court."