CRM-M No. 8676 of 2012(O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 8676 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision : February 01, 2013
Mohan Lal and others,
State of Punjab and others,
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI ***
Present : None for the petitioners.
Ms. Amarjeet Khurana, Addl. A.G Punjab
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
None has appeared for the petitioners ever since the first date
and notice of motion was issued in the absence of counsel for the
Counsel for respondent No.4 states that the proposition
canvassed in this petition has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
As per him, the only ground for quashing of the complaint taken is that the
alleged offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 occurred before the enactment and, therefore, the complaint was
CRM-M No. 8676 of 2012(O&M) ::2::
In V.D.Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 972, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
"8. The attitude displayed by the Petitioner has once again thrown open the decision of the High Court for consideration. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act, could be taken in to consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005."
Consequently, both on merits as well as for want of
prosecution, this petition is dismissed.
( AJAY TEWARI )
February 01, 2013. JUDGE `kk'