The second contention that has been raised is violation of Section 14 of the Act, which provides that the Magistrate may at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondent or the aggrieved person, either singly or jointly, to undergo counseling with any member of a service provider who possess such qualifications and experience in counseling as may be prescribed. Sub- Section (2) provides that where the Magistrate has issued any direction under sub- section (1), he shall fix the next date of hearing of the case within a period not exceeding two months. From the expression "Magistrate may" it appears that the counseling in this case is not compulsory and only when the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the matter can be settled by conciliation, he may ask for counseling of the parties. Thus, the Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in holding that there has been an indefensible violation of Section 14 of the Act.
Orissa High Court
Namita Mohanty vs Pankaja Kumar Mohanty And Others ... on 10 January, 2014
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 89 OF 2013 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. K. MISHRA
Date of Judgment - 10.01.2014
Citation; AIR 2014(NOC) 503 Orissa
