$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4131/2026 MAHINDER AHUJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. L.M. Grover, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocates. versus SHWETA AHUJA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. The petition is for the following reliefs: “i. Allow the present petition and pass appropriate order/ direction for quashing the order and judgment dated 30.04.2026 passed by court of Ld. ASJ-08, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the CA No.137/2025 titled as Shweta Ahuja v. Mahinder Ahuja;” 2. The present petition seeks quashing of the judgement dated 30.04.2026 [“Impugned Judgement”] passed by Additional Sessions Judge-08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.137/2025 titled Shweta Ahuja v. Mahinder Ahuja, whereby the Appellate Court set aside the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the respondent's complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [“Domestic Violence Act”] for non-prosecution and restored the complaint for adjudication on merits. 3. The facts of the case would indicate that respondent – wife instituted proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act against the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:26:25 petitioner – husband. The proceedings remained pending for considerable period. According to the petitioner, the respondent repeatedly delayed the proceedings by seeking adjournments and by failing to prosecute the complaint. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 09.04.2025 the Trial Court dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. Vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2026, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal, restored the complaint and granted the respondent one final opportunity to lead her evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/-. The operative reasoning of the learned Appellate Court is contained in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: “5. Respondent is the husband of appellant. They had been litigating as such, now for about twelve years. Their arguments and their conduct before the Ld. Trial Court is in the nature of mutual wranglings. Both of them are expected to assist the court so that the court of law is enabled to decide the issues between them as per law. It is in the interest of justice that the issues between the appellant and the respondent, which are before the Ld. Trial Court be decided on merits and dismissal of the D.V. Petition for non- prosecution shall not end the conflicts and litigations between these two contesting parties. It is found that the appellant herein is more to blame for the delay in the disposal of D.V. Petition because since she is the assailant, she is expected to ensure that the trial is expedited. Hence, considering the over all circumstances and history of litigations and the manner in which the litigation is being pursued, this court finds that it must not get bogged in the circuitous arguments of the rival parties and must ensure that the interest of justice prevails over petty wranglings between the parties. It is, therefore, this court finds that an opportunity be accorded to the appellant to get her testimony recorded before the Ld. Trial Court so that the Trial Court may have the opportunity to dispose off the dispute before it on merits. To this end, this court deems it fit not to dispose off the present appeal on strict legal considerations and arguments presented, but rather measure the worth of appeal by the yardstick of ‘interest of justice’. Consequently, following order is made : i. the impugned order is set aside, ii. the appellant is accorded only one opportunity to get herself examined before the court i.e. to get her testimony recorded, subject to cost of Rs.20,000/-, to be deposited with the Civil & Session Courts Stenographers Association, Delhi, Punjab National Bank, BO : Gokhale Market, A/c No. 0613000100079946, iii. the respondent shall cross-examine the appellant/complainant- Shweta Ahuja on the same day, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:26:25 iv. the Ld. Trial Court shall fix at it’s convenience, a date of hearing so that the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the appellant/complainant- Shweta Ahuja is completed on the same day, and v. all the pending applications shall be heard and disposed off by Ld. trial court only after the appellant-Shweta Ahuja has been discharged as witness after her examination.” 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the respondent herself was responsible for delaying the proceedings over several years and that the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint after granting repeated opportunities. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment overlooks the conduct of the respondent and erroneously restores proceedings. 6. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has perused the material placed on record. 7. The impugned judgment indicates that the Appellate Court was conscious of the prolonged history of litigation between the parties and has, in fact, observed that the respondent was largely responsible for the delay in the proceedings. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court considered it appropriate, in the peculiar facts of the case, to restore the complaint by granting only one effective opportunity to the respondent to lead her evidence, subject to payment of substantial costs and with a specific direction that her examination-in-chief and cross-examination be concluded on the same date. The restoration is, therefore, not unconditional but is accompanied by adequate safeguards intended to prevent any further delay. 8. It is a settled principle that procedural law is intended to facilitate the administration of justice and not to thwart it. A code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is ‘procedure’, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:26:25 a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, the order passed by the Revisional Court is not interfered with. The same is fully justified. 10. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 8, 2026/aks/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:26:25