Take: When you make as one adv. among us says here criminal law calling it a civil law and add 'prime facie' cognizance then below type of ASJ Ordrs pops out.
The point is not that I want advocates here to debate if DV Act it is civil law or civil remedy law and or a criminal law the point is 'prime facie' civil laws do not operate at all and it is only civil remedy laws that operates 'prime facie' by way of affidavit or by way of a written complaint or even by way of a post card per se for imparting social justice that also immediately to a female victim (more or less pay attention to this last two words instead of jumping your best guns on me).
Once you make a civil law procedural operation under CrPC, aspects right from Jurisdiction to Prime Facie violence / offence happened or not are a must to look into from replies / rejoinders by parties before passing any Order and even at the time of passing a Interim Order under DV Act a Magistrate has to call for DIR and a DIR are written / filled by a PO and not by a Aggrieved person / applicant and even if she (AP / Applicant) fills one a Magistrate Court appointed PO is directed to do "home study if any violence happened or not kar key" and for that home study the order of Magistrate goes to local Police Station and then that PO reports first to the Police Station and takes a Beat Cstb. from Police Station and then is allowed to knock the door of respondent(s) to complete home study / response from respondent(s). Moreover imagine if a female victim is living in Chikmangalore or Andamans [and all respondent(s) are in Delhi] and files DV there and then tell yourself does local Magistrate there has power to move local police all the way to Delhi where victims husband lives with local PO and does these things take splace under Civil Laws as are the procedures even mentione din DV Act itself on what to do once an order is passed (see the Rules)! Also all this does not happen on 'first appearance date" as made to believe / act as per below media news which I was saying much before also.
Under various Family Laws such as HMA / HAMA / GWA / S. 125 CrPC the 'cause of action" is very well defined [even 2 Amendments were aslo incoporated to enlarge scope of cause of action in these collection of civil laws] compared to "Jurisdiction" the word which is used strictly under Criminal Laws sense as rightly pointed by ld. ADJ to now look into to the trial Court in below reporting. A criminal law cannot move an inch without setting first the "jurisdiction" whereas above group of civil laws under family laws it is not so and mere filing Affidavit one can overcome such hurdles atleast to get basic reliefs (such as primarily maint. / custody orders / injunctions etc.). And look how crucial same thing which in crl. law is called as 'Jurisdiction" plays a imp. challenging role under DV Act the moment CrPC becomes the "procedure to follow" and gets mentioned in the same Act / Rules 2005/6 respectively!
Colly. resulting into 'delay and latches' under DV Act to give "summary justice" to the very female victim for which Intent and Object this so called civil law as one advocate tell me are made and once pointed to me !
Judge yourself how much 'instant (summary)" relief a victim under DV Act can get unless this clumsily drafted Law goes back to drawing board and this time of Mint. of Law and Justice (plus Law Commission of India) to re-draft the entire Law. BTW this so called Civil Law came into existence by humongous collective efforts of lobbying of only one Civil Liberties Group called as 'Lawyers Collective' headed by Ms. Indira Jaisingh and was not proposed to general public for Law by Mint. of Law and Justice Dept. of GOI which is responsible for making any Civil / Criminal law for the country !. How many of you know this cruel fact which is resulting today in more traditional families breakage by just drop of recommending DV laga do uspe by many of the advocate(s) here in LCI without any application of mind!!!!!!
Hon'ble SC in Batra and Btara came very close to knowing this gaping fact and had they (the Bench) known that who are the people behind making this law they would not have stopped by mere mentioning "clumsily drafted" in the very same Judgment at the end and I have gr8 respect for the then Lordship Markandey Katju and can very well guess Lordship would not have stopped at these two words and would have gone to much larger extent and would have sent recommendation to Govt. to re-look this law, but then he is now retired so someone else need to step into his shoes.
You cannot expect any other clumsiness when civil people from Lawyers Collective a Civil Liberties Group makes and present to you your "Bharat Ratna" for quick justice to our females living / breathing among us (society) whereas what I know of my Republic is that it is the Govt. which presents Bharat Ratna to we the people not civil people readers ...... that also to a female victim who is shown for centuries to be under privileged in patriarchal traditional Asian societies inspite of touching 1 Cr as alimony with only 1 L as donation to a blind school if last weeks D HC Judgment is skimmed throughly :-) .
By not understanding this Law we are doing more harm to our own women (means women in Indian society) than offering them any alternative good.
I leave all these mini debates to your best understanding of law and law making process and hurdles it produces when they are so clumsily drafted to give 100 different interpretation as one pleases leave aside the misuse and resulting delay to very female victim which are all dominos effect that follows and gets published in public documents and or via media...........
Note: This ASJ Order has no precedent / intrinsic value even in same District Court and or before same ld. ASJ however it is a showcase eg. of confirming Bharat Ratna calling it a Civil Law as per one Advocate among us.
Court scraps order fixing maintenance for estranged wife
TNN
"Needs and requirements of both the sides as well as their income and expenses have not been mentioned in the impugned order. In my opinion, fixing of maintenance at the rate of Rs 15,000 without detailing the reasons would not stand judicial scrutiny," additional sessions judge Anju Bajaj Chandna said.
The order of the court came on an appeal by a northwest
The man, in his appeal, contended that the trial court's order was not supported by reasons and even the issue of jurisdiction was not considered. He argued that no prima facie case of domestic violence, as alleged by his wife, was made out and the basis for fixing maintenance at Rs 15,000 was not given in the order.
While hearing the appeal, the ASJ said, "On perusal of the record, I find that the impugned order was passed on the date of the first appearance of the respondent... Trial court did not find out address of the complainant to see as to whether jurisdiction lies with the court or not. The complainant (wife) has not shown that she is resident of north
The court also noted that there was no specific allegation with respect to domestic violence against the man and that the trial court had failed to give any findings concerning it before pronouncing interim relief in favour of the respondent. "I set aside the impugned order with the directions to the trial court to decide interim application afresh after giving due opportunity to both the sides for advancing arguments and filing reply, if they wish to do so," the ASJ said.
Link:
