P.K. Lohra, J.

Petitioner-husband has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to question legality and propriety of order dated 9th of January 2015, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), accepting appeal of respondent-wife under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act of 2005') and besetting order dated 17th of September, 2014, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu (for short, 'learned trial Court'). By the order impugned, learned appellate Court has annulled the order of learned trial Court passed under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 allowing the petitioner visitation rights to meet his minor son Master Arjun on court dates.

2. The factual matrix, giving rise to this revision petition, is that respondent-wife laid an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 before learned trial Court against petitioner craving relief of different denominations under Section 20 and 22 of the Act of 2005. When the proceedings on application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 were in vogue before the learned trial Court, petitioner-husband filed an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 seeking orders for temporary custody of minor son Master Arjun. Respondent-wife contested the said application by submitting her reply. After submission of reply, arguments were heard by the learned trial Court and by its order dated 17th of September 2014 limited indulgence was granted to the petitioner permitting him visitation rights during court hours on the date of hearing of main application and take him out of court premises. Trial Court further ordered that the petitioner shall handover safe custody of the minor child to his mother respondent-wife after the Court hours are over. That apart, respondent-wife was granted the liberty of laying appropriate application before the Court for not allowing the petitioner to meet the child on school holidays or when minor child is on leave.

3. Learned appellate Court, upon hearing arguments on appeal, reversed the order passed by learned trial Court precisely by citing the reason that temporary custody rights envisaged under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 are available to women only as the Act of 2005 is intended to protect them from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. It is also observed by the learned appellate Court, while upsetting the order of learned trial Court, that aggrieved party in this matter is respondent-wife inasmuch as she has laid an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned appellate Court has seriously erred in construing Section 21 of the Act of 2005. Mr. Choudhary contends that remedy for temporary custody of a child or children is available to both mother and father under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 and the legislature has not confined the said remedy to mother alone. Learned counsel would contend that the Act of 2005 is a special law which is enacted posterior to the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'Act of 1984'), therefore, Section 20 of the Act of 1984 cannot whittle down the powers of a Magistrate to pass appropriate order under Section 21 of the Act of 2005. Mr. Choudhary has also argued that Section 21 of the Act of 2005 begins with non-obstante clause, therefore, Section 7, 8 & 20 of the Act of 1984 cannot divest the powers of a Magistrate from passing appropriate temporary custody orders under Section 21 of the Act of 2005. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Choudhary, has placed reliance on following judgments:

(1) Sandeep Kumar Thakur v. Madhubala, 2016 (supp) Him. L.R. 2611]

(2) Smt. Huidrom Ningol Maiban Ongbi Omila Devi v. Inaobi Singh Maibam, 2017 Cr.L.J. 659

(3) Vinay Gupta v. Saveri Nayak, 2017 (1) DMC 181 : 2017 (1) Crimes 53]

(4) Vikas