Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard.

Issue notice to opposite party No. 2.

2. This is a revision filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order passed by the Court of Sessions in Appeal filed under Section 29 of the ‘Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’) and an order passed under Section 12(5)(b) of the said Act, 2005, by the Magistrate, which has been upheld by the appellate Court.

3. First and foremost, the question of maintainability of this revision is required to be considered specially as learned Additional Government Advocate has raised such an objection based the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 27.1.2016 in Criminal Revision No. 4016 of 2015 (Nishant Krishan Yadav v. State of U.P. and another) which has been rendered after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shalu Ojha v. Prashant Ojha, 2015(2) SCC 99 and it has been held that revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not maintainable against an order passed by the District Judge under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 and while doing so it has expressed its dis-agreement with the view expressed by Kerala High Court in the case of Baiju Chandran Nair and another v. Latha Balan Nair and another, 2011 Crl LJ 4536 and the view expressed by Madras High Court in the case of K. Rajendran v. Ambika Valmy in Criminal Revision Case (M.D) No. 482 of 2012.

4. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court hearing Writ Petition No. 7926 (MS) of 2015 (Mrs.) Manju Sree Robinson and 2 others v. State of U.P. and others) has also taken the same view based on the decision of Shalu Ojha (supra) and has further held that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would also not be maintainable and appropriate remedy was only a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. This Bench had also earlier followed the decision in (Mrs) Manju Shree Robinson (supra), however, on being apprised of the contrary view in the case of Chiranjeev Kumar (supra) and in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15337 of 2012 (Prabhu Nath Tewari and another v. State of U.P. and another) as also the decisions of Kerala and Madras High Courts this Bench had a fresh look at the matter.

6. The Act, 2005 is a special enactment which has been promulgated, as is evident from its long title, to provide more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It provides remedy in such matters under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 as also a provisions for grant of interim order or ex parte order under Section 23. The proceedings under the aforesaid provisions are to take place before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local limits the contingencies mentioned in Section 27 arise. As per Section 28(1), save as otherwise provided in the Act, 2005, all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-section 2 of Section 28 provides that nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under sub-section (2) of Section 23, meaning thereby a procedure different from one provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be laid down for the said purpose. There is nothing on record to show that procedure other than the one prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure has been prescribed for proceedings under Section 12 and 23(2) of the Act, 2005.

7. Under Section 29 there shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within 30 days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or t