Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.
Shailendra Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Ratan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43609 of 2015
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Jurisdictional Limits of Orders Under the D.V. Act: Prohibition orders issued under the Domestic Violence Act must pertain only to properties that are either jointly held or solely owned by the respondent. Orders cannot restrict properties in which third parties have interests if those properties are not jointly owned or exclusively owned by the respondent (!) (!) .
Scope of Property Restrictions: Orders that restrict alienation or transfer of property must be specific and applicable only to properties with a clear connection to the respondent or jointly held with the aggrieved person. Vague or broadly worded orders affecting properties where third-party interests exist are not permissible (!) .
Proper Application of Legal Provisions: The court emphasized the importance of applying statutory provisions correctly, particularly Sections 18 and 19 of the D.V. Act, to ensure that property-related reliefs are within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and do not infringe on the rights of third parties or involve properties beyond the scope of the Act (!) .
Civil Nature of Property Orders: Orders under Section 18 are primarily civil in nature and should be confined to properties used or enjoyed jointly or solely by the parties involved. Orders affecting properties where third-party interests exist require careful consideration to avoid affecting unrelated interests (!) .
Clarification on Rights Related to Shared Household and Maintenance: The order clarified that the rights of the aggrieved party to reside in the shared household or to receive maintenance are not affected by the order setting aside the prohibition relating to property. The aggrieved party retains these rights if previously granted by the Magistrate (!) .
Right to File Fresh Petitions: If the aggrieved person seeks relief under Sections 18 and 19 of the D.V. Act concerning property restrictions or other reliefs, they have the liberty to file a new petition before the Magistrate, as the previous orders were set aside due to procedural and jurisdictional issues (!) .
In summary, the court underscored the necessity for precise and jurisdictionally appropriate orders under the D.V. Act, especially concerning property restrictions, and clarified that such orders cannot be broadly or vaguely applied to properties where third-party interests exist.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal challenge to orders under d.v. act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court analysis of jurisdiction and legal stipulations in d.v. act. (Para 5) |
| 3. clarification on rights concerning shared household and maintenance. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
(SHAILENDRA SINGH, J.)
Heard Ms. Prerna Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dayshanker Pandey, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned APP for the State.
2. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.02.2015 passed in Criminal Revision No. 948 of 2010 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Patna whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.08.2010 passed in Domestic Violence Case No. 03 of 2008 preferred by the O.P. No.2, by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna has been rejected.
3. Ms. Prerna Rishi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the O.P. No.2 filed a petition on 22.01.2008 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘D.V. Act’) for seeking protection under Sections 18 and 19 of the D.V. Act and based on that petition, on 05.06.2009 behind the back of the petitioner an interim relief was granted to the O.P. No.2 restraining the petitioner from alienating any part of his joint or separate property in any manner. After passing of the said order the petitioner filed a petition before the concerned Magistrate which was decided by order dated 10.08.2010 directing the petitioner to file an affidavit to this effect that he had not transferred or sold any part of his land regarding which he had been debarred from alienating by the order dated 05.06.2009 and he was also directed to file an affidavit to this effect that he would not alienate or dispose of any of his property and it was directed that in the situation of non-compliance of the said order a proceeding under Section 31 of D.V. Act would be initiated against him and said order dated 10.08.2010 was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court by filing the Cr. Revision No. 948 of 2010 and the same was rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dated 24.02.2015 which is under challenge in this matter. It is further submitted that the relief granted to the O.P. No.2 under Section 18 of D.V. Act restraining the petitioner from alienating any land or property in which he has a joint or independent share while the O.P. No. 2 has no share or interest is completely beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate as such relief cannot be passed under Section 18 of D.V. Act .
4. On the contrary, Mr. Dayshanker Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the order as to directing the petitioner to allow the O.P. No. 2 to reside in his house has not been complied with by the petitioner rather the petitioner has filed a divorce case and he is not paying maintenance to the O.P. No. 2 despite accumulating the arrears of huge amount of said maintenance amount.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the revisional Court as well as the order dated 10.08.2010 passed in the Domestic Violence Case No. 03 of 2008 by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. It appears that by the learned Magistrate where the D.V. Case No. 03 of 2008 is pending, a protection order under Section 18 of the D.V. Act has been passed by which the petitioner has been prohibited from transferring any joint or other property of him and in this regard an interim order was initially passed by the learned Magistrate on 05.06.2009, and thereafter by order dated 10.08.2010 the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit to show whether he had transferred any of his land or not and by the same order he was also directed to file an affidavit for giving an undertaking that he would not dispose of any of his property till further order of the concerned Ma
AI
Prohibition orders under the Domestic Violence Act must only apply to jointly held or solely owned properties, and orders cannot restrict property not jointly possessed, ensuring jurisdictional limit....
The court affirmed that domestic violence encompasses various forms of abuse, and maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application under the DV Act, not the date of the order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to be attracted, there must be a breach of a specific protection....
The court clarified the nature of interlocutory orders and their impact on the rights of the parties involved.
The Domestic Violence Act allows for multiple complaints regarding recurring issues, and jurisdiction is determined by the location of the property related to the complaint.
An interim order preventing a woman from being dispossessed from a shared household qualifies as a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act, enforceable under Section 31.
Economic abuse is included in the definition of domestic violence under the DV Act, allowing for protection orders while property disputes are adjudicated in civil courts.
The entitlement of reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is based on the occurrence of domestic violence and the suffering of the aggrieved person, as established by....
The court established that interim reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act can include the repossession of property to prevent economic abuse, and that the High Court has the authority to review orde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
