ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The petitioner has filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 6 of 2009 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act) in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack seeking certain reliefs against the present opposite parties. Opposite party No. 5 is the husband of the petitioner, whereas, the other opposite parties who are all women are the in-laws of the petitioner. The opposite parties filed a petition before the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack to exclude opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 from the category of respondents on the ground that they being women relatives of the husband of the petitioner, they cannot be added as respondents. The said petition was allowed by order dated 26-10-2009 which is impugned in this criminal revision.

3. At the very out set, learned counsel for the opposite parties raises objection to the maintainability of this criminal revision stating that the impugned order is appealable under Section 29 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that an appeal lies against any order which is passed under any of the provisions of the Act and that the present order, being not one under any of the provisions of the Act, is not appealable.

4. Learned counsel for both the parties rely on some decisions of different High Courts in support of their respective contentions.

5. The Kerala High Court in the case of Chithrangathan v. Seema, (2008) 1 DMC 365 examined the question of maintainability of revision against an ad interim order passed under Section 23(2) of the Act and held that the order impugned was appealable under Section 29 of the Act and revision was not maintainable.

The Kerala High Court also in W.P. (C) 19032 of 2008 between Girijan v. Subhadra, decided on 25-6-2008, examined the question with reference to an interim order and held that the order impugned was appealable under Section 29 of the Act.

In AIR 2009 (NOC) 507 (Utr) (Manish Tandon v. Richa Tandon), it has been held that the word order used in Section 29 of the Act connotes all type of orders passed by the Magistrate Irrespective of its description and nature which has been made appealable and, therefore, the petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. would not be maintainable.

6. The Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2218 of 2007 in the case of Mr. Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra disposed of on 16-9-2008 (Reported in 2009 (1) AIR Bom R 212) examined the question whether an order passed by the Magistrate in a proceeding under the Act refusing partly to grant interim relief was appealable or not and held that an appeal would lie against any final order passed by the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act and all interim orders passed under Section 23 of the Act, but no appeal under Section 29 of the Act, would be maintainable against purely procedural orders which do not decide or determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.

7. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court referred to above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present impugned order, being a procedural orders, which does not decide any rights or liabilities of the parties, cannot be made appealable under Section 29 of the Act. He further submits that appeal lies only against orders contemplated in different provisions of the Act and copies whereof have been served free of cost on the parties as per Section 24 of the Act.

8. Section 29 of the Act, which provides for appeal, runs as under :

29. Appeal . There shall be appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.

Section 24 of the Act provides as follows :

24. Court to give copies of order free of cost The Magistrate shall, in all cases where he has passed any order under