IMPORTANT POINT:
Words “The order” in section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act must take within its sweep only orders passed u/s 18 to 23 of the Act and interlocutory orders would be out of its scope.

ORDER

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.—Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 04/12/2012 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No.28/2012, the applicants herein have filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as ‘Cr.P.C.), by which, their appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 2005’) has been dismissed.

2. The core facts required for judging the correctness of the impugned judgment are as under:-

2.1 Smt. Puja Jindal/non-applicant No.1 herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 seeking reliefs as provided under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of Act of 2005, as she is wife of the applicant No.1. The said application was filed on 27/03/2012. The jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh issued notice to the present applicants for their appearance before the said Court on 20/04/2012. Present applicants entered into their appearance before the said Court by filing memo of appearance and filed an application seeking time to file reply of the application filed by the non-applicant No.1 under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. The said application was opposed by non-applicant No.1 stating inter alia that personal attendance of the applicants be secured before the Court in the next date of hearing.

2.2 The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, by its order dated 20/04/2012 partly allowed the application filed by the applicants granting time to file reply and directed the applicants to remain present personally before the Court on 01/05/2012, and also sought reply from the non-applicant No.1 to the application under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. for dispensing their personal attendance filed by the applicants. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 20/04/2012, directing their personal attendance before the said Court, the present applicants preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 before the Court of Session, Raigarh.

2.3 The Court of Session, by its impugned judgment dated 04/12/2012, dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal is not maintainable in law as under Section 29, appeal is only maintainable against the order passed by the Magistrate in exercise. of jurisdiction conferred under Sections 18 to 23 of the Act of 2005.

2.4 Assailing this order, the present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the applicants herein,

3. Mr. P.K. Verma, learned senior counsel with Mr. Sunil Sahu, appearing for the applicants would submit that the learned Sessions Judge went wrong in holding that the appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 is riot maintainable against the impugned order and thereby committed a manifest legal error of law in dismissing the appeal, as such, the appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 was clearly maintainable as the order directing personal attendance has affected their rights substantially.

4. Opposing the submissions made by counsel for the applicants. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel with Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, appearing for the non-applicant-No.1 would submit that the order passed-by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh on 20/04/2012 was purely an interlocutory, order, which was procedural in nature and has not decided the rights of the parties, and therefore, the appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2005 was not maintainable and learned Sessions Judge has rightly held it to be not ‘maintainable under Section 29 of the Act of 2005.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival sub- missions made therein.

6. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the fami