IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that reliefs under the DV Act are civil, and appeals against such orders cannot be treated as criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan J.

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed for quashing/setting aside the judgment dated 27.10.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby the appeal against the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonipat, has been modified.

2. The appellant-wife has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the DV Act’). The Judicial Magistrate granted the interim relief of maintenance to the appellant-wife to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month while declining the alternate relief of accommodation and shared house-hold. The said order was challenged by both the parties in an appeal filed under Section 29 of the DV Act. The said order was modified and a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded towards rent for alternate accommodation to the appellant-wife from the date of the application. However, the appeal filed by respondent No. 1– Varun (husband) was dismissed. The said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in an appeal under Section 21 of the DV Act, has been challenged by way of filing the present criminal appeal.

2.1 A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the respondent husband has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards rent for alternate accommodation to the appellant-wife. No such order has been passed which is criminal in nature.

2.2 Prayer in the present appeal is for modification of the impugned order by way of granting enhancement of the amount awarded by the impugned order and for issuance of directions to the respondent-husband to provide alternate accommodation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contends that earlier the appellant had filed a revision petition which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.01.2023 seeking liberty to file an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, as such, the present appeal is maintainable.

4. I have considered the aforesaid contentions.

5. As per the provisions of Section 29 of the DV Act, the order passed by the Magistrate is appealable before the Court of Sessions. However, there is no such provision under Section 29 of the DV Act to challenge the order passed by the Court of Sessions by way of filing a criminal appeal before this Court. Section 29 of the DV Act reads as under:-

“Appeal,— There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Sessions within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person on the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.”

6. Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out that there is any other provision under the DV Act for filing an appeal before this Court challenging the order passed by the Court of Sessions.

7. No such order has been passed which is criminal in nature which has been challenged by way of filing the present appeal.

8. While dealing with the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a question “whether the respondent has been granted any such relief, which amounts to an order against the petitioner which is criminal in nature”? was considered and discussed by this Bench in CRMM- 58023-2023 , titled Gautam Singal vs. Anju Singal , decided on 30.11.2023.

9. While referring to the various legal provisions under the DV Act and the decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another 2016 (11) SCC 774, Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan 2022 (2) RCR (Criminal) 751 and decision of the Full Bench of Madras High Court in Arul Daniel and others vs. Suganya 2022 (4) PLR 34, it was held that the relief granted under Sections 12 to 23 of the DV Act is civil in nature. However, when there is a breach of such orders passed by the Magistrate then such a breach is a punishable offence under Section 31 of the DV Act. It was further observed that Hon’ble the Apex Court in Kamatchi’s case (supra) has held that the application under Section 12 of th