2025:HHC:5715 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 621 of 2024 Date of decision : 11.3.2025. Narayan Dutt Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus Rameshwari Sharma ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Suchitra Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has challenged order dated 9.9.2024, passed by the learned Judicial magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla, in Case No. 15 of 2024, whereby a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month has been ordered to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent as an interim measure under Section 23 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short the ‘Act’). 2. Section 29 of the Act provides for right to file an appeal before the Court of Sessions by the person aggrieved against an order passed by the Magistrate. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. The petitioner instead of availing remedy under Section 29 of the Act, has approached this Court by filing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the last date, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to satisfy the Court on the maintainability of instant petition in light of availability of right of appeal under Section 29 of the Act. 5. Today, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.5, Shimla, who passed the impugned order, had no jurisdiction to do so in view of the averments made in the complaint. It has been tried to be explained that as per respondent, her harassment at the hands of the petitioner had started in the year 2000 and since the Act was enforced in the year 2006, it could not be applied retrospectively. 6. Having considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, I am not convinced. The respondent has clearly made an averment that she has faced harassment since 2000. The petition was filed in the year 2024, which means that she had made complaint -3- against continuing wrong. That being so, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the complaint/petition of the respondent cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and for such reason, this Court in exercise of its restrictive supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution will not examine the merits of the order by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner had remedy to file appeal which he in his wisdom did not choose to avail. In result, no indulgence can be shown by this Court and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 11th March, 2025 (kck)