HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4970/2016 Amar Saxena Son Of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Saxena, R/o Plot No.2/664, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Smt. Shridha Saxena D/o Shri Deependra Singh, R/o 70/183, Sector-17, Pratap Nagar Housing Board, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rahul Singh & Mr.M. L. Sharma for Mr.R.K. Daga For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP Ms.Shridha Saxena (in-person) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/03/2026 1. The instant misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.30, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur wherein the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for rejection of the complaint submitted by the respondent under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 08.02.2011 and thereafter, a domestic violence complaint was submitted by the respondent against the petitioner on the allegations of committing domestic violence upon her. Counsel submits that the respondent is residing (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4970/2016] separately without any justified reason at her maternal home since 16.03.2012, a legal notice was sent on 27.04.2015 to return the jewellery and collect the goods belonging to her thereafter, she lodged an F.I.R. No.382/2015 against the petitioner and other family members and filed the instant complaint, which is barred by limitation. Counsel submits that for the alleged incident which pertains to domestic violence, the complaint was not submitted within the time frame rather the same has been filed after a lapse of more than one year. Hence, under these circumstances, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected on this count alone. Counsel submits that an application in this regard read with Section 468 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the trial Court, but the same has been erroneously rejected vide impugned order dated 05.05.2016. Lastly, he argued that if cruelty and desertion is found to be proved, then under such circumstances, the wife is not entitled to get maintenance. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Anita Jain Vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain & Anr. reported in 2007 (4) RLW 2717, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, the respondent has put in appearance in-person and opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no delay in filing the complaint rather the same was filed within the period of limitation. She further submits that the interim orders with regard to maintenance were passed in her favour in the year 2016 and half of the maintenance (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4970/2016] up to the period of 2021 has been paid. She submits that the interim order with regard to payment of maintenance, has been partly complied with by the petitioner and she has received only 50% of the amount due for the period 2015 to 2021. She further submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstance of the case, appropriate orders be passed to the Court below to decide the pending complaint expeditiously as early as possible, as the same is lying pending before the said Court since 2015 and more than 11 years have been passed thereafter. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the respondent has submitted an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act with regard to the alleged incident, which has occurred with her at the matrimonial home and during pendency of the said complaint, interim orders were passed directing the petitioner to pay certain amount of maintenance to the respondent. 6. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, an application was submitted by the petitioner for rejection of the aforesaid complaint on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation and the said application has been rejected by the Court below not on merits but on a technical count that this fact cannot be appreciated at interim hearing stage, however the same can be taken up at the final stage of arguments. 7. The matter is still subjudice before the trial Court at the stage of recording of evidence of the respondent, hence, instead (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4970/2016] of entertaining the instant petition and interfering with the order impugned passed by this Court, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition with a clear and specific direction to the trial Court to decide the main complaint against domestic violence expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 8. 8. It goes without saying that all the objections which have been taken by the petitioner and the defence taken by the respondent would be taken into count by the learned Court below at the time of passing of the final order. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /27