IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appeal – Orders which decide rights and liabilities of parties either finally or at an interim stage may be legitimately subjected to appeal.
(2) Alternative remedy – When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, writ petition should not be entertained ignoring statutory dispensation.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 30th September, 2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai issuing process against the petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 and 3 for the offences punishable under section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the DV Act, 2005).

2. The background facts leading to this petition can be stated in brief as under:—

(a) The marriage of the petitioner No. 2 was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 12th February, 2011. The petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 were blessed with the twins, on 5th September, 2014. Their marital life was, however, afflicted with discord. In the wake of matrimonial discord, it seems, a number of proceedings came to be instituted, including a complaint under DV Act, 2005, being CC No.6/DV/2020 wherein the respondent No. 2 complainant sought multiple reliefs in the nature of protection order, residence order and monetary reliefs. In the said complaint, apart from Mr. Anirudha Garg (petitioner No. 2 herein) the husband of respondent No. 2, Mr. Ajay Garg, father in law, and Mrs. Harshrekha Garg, mother in law, (the petitioner No. 1 herein) were also impleaded as party respondents.

(b) Without delving into the allegations and counter-allegations, it would be suffice to note that the respondent No. 2-complainant preferred an application in the said proceeding i.e. CC No.6/DV/2020, for interim reliefs. By an order dated 29th February, 2020, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai partly allowed the said interim application and prohibited the respondents therein (petitioners herein and Mr. Ajay Garg) from dispossessing the applicant and her children from matrimonial home i.e. 224, Tahnee Heights, B wing, 22nd Floor, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai. The respondents were also directed to hand over a key of the main entrance of the said matrimonial home to the respondent No. 2/complainant. It was further ordered that the parties shall respect each other’s privacy and dignity and ensure that no disturbance is caused in the said matrimonial home.

3. The respondent No. 2/complainant preferred an application alleging breach of the aforesaid order. It was alleged that on 5th March, 2020, the respondent Nos. 1 and 3/petitioners herein, in flagrant violation of aforesaid order, installed five CCTV cameras (wifi enabled) in the aforesaid matrimonial home of respondent No. 2, in respect of which the learned Magistrate had passed protection orders. The respondent No. 2 furnished the particulars of the locations where the CCTV cameras were installed. It was further alleged that the petitioner No. 2 threatened that he would monitor the movements of the complainant and record the conversations 24 x 7. This act of the petitioners constituted an invidious infringement on respondent No.2’s right to privacy and in clear breach of the direction that the parties shall respect each other’s privacy and dignity.

4. The learned Magistrate recorded the verification statement of the respondent No. 2/complainant. After perusal of the complaint and consideration of the material, the learned Magistrate recorded that a prima facie case of breach of interim protection order, passed on 29th February, 2020, was made out. Thus process was ordered to be issued for the offence punishable under section 31 of the DV Act, 2005 against the petitioners (respondent Nos. 1 and 3) only.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have invoked writ and inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners, inter alia, assert that the learned Magistrate committed a grave error in holding that a prima facie case for the offence punishable under section 31 of the DV Act, 2005 was made out. The installation of CCTV cameras in the common areas of the subject premises would not am