Procedural fairness is essential in legal proceedings; improper notice invalidates ex-parte orders regarding maintenance and housing arrangements under domestic violence laws.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard the petitioner, who is appearing in person, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This revision petition has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 28.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Latehar, in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2023, whereby, the learned appellate court has modified the order dated 23.02.2023 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, passed in connection with complaint Case No. 392 of 2022, by way of setting aside the maintenance part of the said order, however, the petitioner was allowed to remain in the same house in terms of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

3. The petitioner, who is appearing in person submits that her marriage was solemnized with O.P. No. 2 on 30.11.2019 as per the Hindu rites and customs and relationship was good till one month and thereafter O.P. No. 2 demanded Rs. 30 lakhs and one SUV in the form of dowry and when the demand was not fulfilled, the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 started humiliating and abusing the petitioner without any reason and even the allegation of assault is also there. She further submits that she also filed a case being Original (Matrimonial) Suit No. 516 of 2021 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and simultaneously a complaint was also filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar. She also submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar by way of order dated 23.02.2023, directed the petitioner to remain in the residential house and further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month for the maintenance including all expenses and further Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost and compensation. She submits that Rs. 20,000/- was directed to be paid with effect from 29.09.2022 i.e. the date of filing the complaint petition.

4. She further submits that aggrieved with the said order, the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 herein have preferred criminal appeal No. 21 of 2023, whereby the learned first appellate court has decided the said appeal by the judgment dated 28.02.2025 by way of partly allowing the said appeal and setting aside the maintenance part of the order, however, the residential part of the order has not been interfered with. She submits that she is aggrieved with that part of the order to that effect that the maintenance part has been set aside by the learned first appellate court, which is not in accordance with law. She further submits that the provisions are there of allowing the maintenance under the said Act and the order of the first appellate court has wrongly passed the said order. She also submits that she has got no means to maintain herself, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

5. Mr. Lala, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, who are the husband and mother-in-law respectively of the petitioner has opposed the prayer and submits that the mandatory provisions of notice in light of Section 13 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has not been followed by the learned court and ex-parte order has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar. He submits that the petitioner after knowing about the pendency before the case before the learned the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, filed a petition under Section 25 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for duration and alternation of the ord