1 2025:CGHC:41856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1353 of 2024 Beena Sharma W/o Shishir Prakash Sharma Aged About 37 Years (Wrongly Written As Veena Sharma In The Impugned Orders), R/o Sector-1, Road No. 8, Block No. 13/B Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Prakashnath Sharma (Died And Deleted) As Per Court’s Order Dated 19- 08-2025. 2 - Smt. Kishori Prakash Sharma W/o Prakashnath Sharma Aged About 72 Years R/o Shivnath Colony, Gali No. 1, Dist. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Dr. Shishir Prakash Sharma S/o Prakashnath Sharma R/o Sector-1, Road No. 8, Block No. 13/b, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Piyush Prakash Sharma S/o Prakashnath Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o Sector-1, Road No. 8, Block No. 13/b, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Pratishtha Sharma W/o Piyush Prakash Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Sector-1, Road No. 8, Block No. 13/b, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Gunjan Jha D/o Prakashnath Sharma, W/o Prasun Jha Aged About 44 Years R/o Sector-1, Road No. 8, Block No. 13/b, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 7 - Prasun Jha Aged About 46 Years R/o Sector-1, Road No. 8, Block No. 13/b, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Jha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 231/2024, arising out of the order dated 16.03.2024, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Durg, in MJC Criminal Case No. 587/2021, whereby the learned appellate Court, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and set-aside the order dated 16.03.2024. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that in the instant case the applicant is the wife of respondent No.3 and respondent No.1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant, respondent No.4 is the brother-in-law and respondent No.5 is wife of respondent No.4, respondent No.6 is sister-in-law of the applicant and respondent No.7 is husband of respondent No.6. The applicant got married with respondent No.3 on 20- 03-2019 and since then she was residing with him and his parents and other family members at Sector-1. Road No.8, Block No. 13/1, Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.). Subsequently after some time, the behavior of the parents of her husband (respondent No.1 and 2) got changed and they started tying to keep away their son away from the applicant and they make regular attempts to do so. After some time the respondent No.3 also got manipulated with his parents and he also started torturing the applicant. When the harassment became unbearable, she made complaints against the respondents before Police Station as well as before the Court. She also moved an application under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G) for protection and maintenance on 16-09-2021 which was registered as MJC No.587/2021. The applicant was duly appearing before the 3 Learned Court and followed all the procedure required as per the law. She also submitted her affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, but subsequently due to severe illness of her father she had to immediately rush to her maternal house which was situated at Himachal Pradesh and further due to the land slide occurred in that area, all the transportation services were halt, due to which she could not appeared before the Court during the course of hearing, but her counsel was appeared and informed the Court about the same and requested for further time for the evidence, but the learned trial Court refused to entertain the same and ended the opportunity of the applicant for presenting the evidences on 07-08-2023. It is relevant to note that the case bearing MJC No.587/2021 is still pending and only the order for opportunity for examination of the evidence has been declined. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07-08-2023, the applicant filed an appeal before the Learned Additional District Judge, Durg which is still pending for kind consideration. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondents again started trying to remove the applicant from her house and harass the applicant physically and mentally. Therefore, looking to the situation, the applicant moved an application under Sections 12, 17, 18, and 19 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Court for granting interim protection on 13-03-2024. The learned Additional District Judge considered the application and forwarded the application along with the records of the case before the learned JMFC for further procedure. The learned JMFC merged the application with MJC No.587/2021 and took into consideration of the application and issued notice to the respondents and subsequently after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record passed the order on 16-03-2024 in favor of the applicant and directed that the applicant has the right to 4 reside in the house along with the respondents. Against the order dated 16-03-2024, the respondent No.1 and 2 filed the criminal appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Learned Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G) which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.231/2024 in which the Learned Court passed the impugned order 20- 11-2024 and set-aside the order 16-03-2024 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the evidences present on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has no source of income and livelihood and further she has no other place to reside other than the house of the respondents, but knowing all these facts, the respondents tried to remove the applicant from her house without any reason and just to avoid respondent No.3 to reside with the applicant, therefore, the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, and the same is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not maintainable against any purely procedural order which do not determine the rights and liabilities. In the instant case, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg by its order dated 16.03.2024 has only allowed the protection and thus the appeal itself is not maintainable. He also relies upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 90, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that; “ While Section 19 deals with a multitude of directions or orders which may be passed against the respondent vis-a-vis the shared household in favour of an aggrieved person, 5 Section 17 confers a right on every woman in a domestic relationship to reside in the shared household irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. ” 6. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors., reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 23 and 24 that; “ 23. Adverting to the factual situation at hand, on construing the provisions of sub-Section (2) of section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act 2007, it is evident that it applies to a situation where a senior citizen has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate and such estate or part thereof is transferred. On the other hand, the appellant’s simple plea is that the suit premises constitute her „shared household within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act 2005. We have also seen the series of transactions which took place in respect of the property: the spouse of the appellant purchased it in his own name a few months before the marriage but subsequently sold it, after a few years, under a registered sale deed at the same price to his father (the father-in-law of the appellant), who in turn gifted it to his spouse i.e. the mother-in-law of the appellant after divorce proceedings were instituted by the Fourth respondent. Parallel to this, the appellant had instituted proceedings of dowry harassment against her mother-in-law and her estranged spouse; and her spouse had instituted divorce proceedings. The appellant had also filed proceedings for maintenance against the Fourth respondent and the divorce proceedings are pending. It is subsequent to these events, that the Second and Third respondents instituted an application under the Senior Citizens Act 2007. The fact that specific proceedings under the PWDV Act 2005 had not been instituted when the application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was filed, should not lead to a situation where the enforcement of an order of eviction deprives her 6 from pursuing her claim of entitlement under the law. The inability of a woman to access judicial remedies may, as this case exemplifies, be a consequence of destitution, ignorance or lack of resources. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the view that recourse to the summary procedure contemplated by the Senior Citizen Act 2007 was not available for the purpose of facilitating strategies that are designed to defeat the claim of the appellant in respect of a shared household. A shared household would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly residing with her husband. Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws (Second and Third Respondents) or that her estranged spouse (Fourth respondent) is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection that was envisaged under the PWDV Act 2005. F Summation 24. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant that the premises constitute a shared household within the meaning of the PWDV Act 2005 would have to be determined by the appropriate forum. The claim cannot simply be obviated by evicting the appellant in exercise of the summary powers entrusted by the Senior Citizens Act 2007. The Second and Third Respondents are at liberty to make a subsequent application under Section 10 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 for alteration of the maintenance allowance, before the appropriate forum. For the above reasons, while allowing the appeal, we issue the following directions: (i) The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 17 September 2019 affirming the order of eviction against the appellant shall stand set aside with the consequence that the order of the Assistant Commissioner ordering and directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises shall stand set aside; 7 (ii) We leave it open to the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005. For that purpose, it would be open to the appellant to seek the help of the District Legal Services Authorities and if the appellant does so, all necessary aid and assistance shall be furnished to her in pursuing her legal remedies and rights; (iii) IA 111352/2020 for restoration of the electricity connection is allowed by directing the Fourth respondent to take all necessary steps for restoration of the electricity connection to the premises within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Fourth respondent shall also continue to pay the electricity dues in future; and (iv) In order to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005, there shall be an order and direction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the appellant, disposing of the premises or from creating any right, title and interest in favor of any third party in any manner whatsoever for a period of one year, to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies in accordance with law. The appellant is at liberty to move the Court to espouse her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005 for appropriate orders, including interim protections. The directions contained in (iii) and (iv) above emanate in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. ” 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 231/2024, arising out of the order dated 16.03.2024, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Durg, in MJC Criminal Case 8 No. 587/2021, whereby the learned appellate Court, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and set-aside the order dated 16.03.2024, and the same does not require any interference by this Court, therefore, the instant revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, reads as under : “ 29. Appeal.—There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later. ” 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the appeal before the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC), District – Durg, was not maintainable as no such appeal lies against the interlocutory order, the same appears to be wholly unsustainable, as the learned Judicial Magistrate in his order has granted permission to the applicant to sharehold of the house of the respondents No.2 to 7 and feeling aggrieved by the same the respondents No.2 to 7 filed an appeal before the appellate Court, and learned appellate Court set-aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. Hence, the said order cannot be said to be any interlocutory order as the said order of the Magistrate was prejudicial to the respondents No. 2 to 7 and they have right to file an appeal before the Sessions Court. Moreover, the case law cited by the counsel for the applicant, is not applicable for facts and circumstances of the present case, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after 9 applying mind the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District – Durg (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 231/2024, setting aside of the order dated 16.03.2024, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Durg, in MJC Criminal Case No. 587/2021, whereby the learned appellate Court, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and set-aside the order dated 16.03.2024, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference of this Court. 11. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused, as the proceedings under the provisions of Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is still pending. 12. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to conclude the entire proceedings under the provisions of Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 13. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as original records to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar