Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kr. Samendra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.S.’) for quashing the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by Ms. Kriti, learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Gaya, wherein considering application dated 25.07.2024 filed by the complainant/aggrieved person/O.P. No. 2, under section 23(2) of the Domestic Violence Act (in short, the ‘D.V. Act’) in pending Domestic Violence Case No. 02/2024, learned Magistrate has been pleased to allow protection qua “shared household” and monetary protection as sought for.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that aforesaid Domestic Violence Case No. 02/2024 was filed before the court of learned CJM, Gaya, seeking different protections as available under section 18, 19, 20 and 23 of the D.V. Act on the basis of forged and fabricated documents concealing the income and status of “shared household” from the court below.

4. It is submitted that impugned interim order under section 23(2) of the D.V. Act, for grant of ad-interim protection was passed without being given an opportunity to file reply of petition dated 25.07.2024.

5. Mr. Ansul, while arguing further, submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the house situated at C110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-410206, is a self-acquired property of petitioner no. 2 namely, Awadhesh Kumar Singh, who is the father of petitioner no. 1 namely, Ravi Kumar Singh (husband of O.P. No.2), and same was never used as shared house hold by O.P. No. 2 namely, Aditi Singh.

6. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that present petition was filed only to grab the share in property/paternal property of petitioner no. 1/husband. It is pointed out that as O.P. No. 2/Aditi Singh never resided in the aforesaid Flat situated at Navi Mumbai, therefore, same cannot be termed as ‘shared house hold’. It is submitted that at the time of marriage, the husband/petitioner no. 1 of O.P. No. 2 was living in a rented premises and they never lived in parental house of petitioner no. 1.

7. It is submitted that the husband/Ravi Kumar Singh is paying Rs. 25,000/- to O.P. No.2 as an ad-interim maintenance in compliance of the order dated 02.08.2024 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1011/2024, while he approached this Court for quashing of FIR lodged for the offence alleged to be committed under Section 498A of the IPC.

8. It is submitted that beside the aforesaid further monetary protection of Rs. 15,000/- was passed against petitioner no. 1 by completely ignoring the income of O.P. No.2 namely, Aditi Singh, who herself is highly educated lady (law graduate) and working with multinational companies like, M/s Kotak Mahindra and M/s Aditya Birla Finance Company and drawing more than Rs. One Lakh monthly salary.

9. It is submitted by Mr. Ansul, that marriage took place on 16.02.2022, whereafter O.P. No. 2 came to her matrimonial village on 17.02.2022, at village Hemantpur, District – Samastipur (Bihar).

10. Learned senior counsel in support of ‘shared household’ relied upon the Leave and License Agreement executed on 12.04.2023 between one Bharat Kunvarji Maru and petitioner no. 1 namely, Ravi Kumar Singh, which was valid from period 10.04.2023 to 09.03.2024. It was further extended from 01.03.2024 to 31.03.2025 through Annexure ‘4/2’, therefore, shared house hold was a rented premises where O.P. No2. was living with her husband/petitioner no. 1 namely, Ravi Kumar Singh, and not at C110, National Park, Plot No. 452, Takka Panvel, Raigarh, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin-410206.

11. In this context, Mr. Ansul further submitted that parties were living together in the rented premises for the reason that their work pla