The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 has overriding effect over other laws and that a compromise is a bilateral surrender, precluding parties from bringing any fresh cause of action on the same grounds in the future.

Rajeev Misra, J.

This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th May, 2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Maharajganj in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2017 (Mahafujur Rahaman vs. Smt. Rehana & Others) filed by the revisionist under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and against the order dated 19th July, 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj in Case No. 46 of 2010 (Rehana & Others vs. Mahafujur Rahman & Others) arising out of an order dated 15th November, 2007, under Section 12-A of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, as modified vide order dated 30th October, 2009.

2. I have heard Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The facts giving rise to the present criminal revision may be summarized in a nut shell as under :

The revisionist Mahafujur Rahaman was married to the opposite party no.2 Rehana in accordance with the Muslim Rites and Customs. From this wed1-11lock, three children namely, Faisal, Nadeem and Nishat Khatoon were born. Subsequently, it appears that the revisionist deserted his wife and abandoned his children. As a consequence of the aforesaid, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 herein, namely, Smt. Rehana and her children filed an application dated 15th June, 2007 in terms of Sections 12, 18,19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2005"). This application filed by the opposite party no.2 came to be allowed by the Trial Court by means of the order dated 15th November, 2007. The Trial Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and further directed that residential rights be granted to the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 herein in terms of Section 19 of the Act of 2005. This order dated 15th November, 2007 was carried in an appeal filed by the revisionist being Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2009 (Mahafujur Rahman & Others vs. Rehana & Others) that was partly allowed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 30th October, 2009. The Appellate Court set aside the order dated 15th November, 2007 passed by the Magistrate, but directed that a sum of Rs. 1,200/- each i.e. Rs. 4,800/- shall be paid by the appellant nos.2 to 4 to the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 herein, out of the amount sent by the appellant no.1 Mahafujur Rahman from Saudia Arabia. As a result of the aforesaid, the residential rights granted by the Trial Court in favour of the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 herein came to an end. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Appellate Court was not paid. Consequently, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were compelled to file an application dated 8th January, 2010 for implementation of the order dated 30th October, 2009 for recovery of the amount payable to them in terms of the aforesaid order.

4. The Trial Court passed a detailed order dated 8th February, 2010 on the said application, whereby recovery warrant was issued against the revisionist and further a direction was issued to the opposite party no.2 herein to supply the details of the property of the revisionist, so that the same may be attached for recovering the amount payable in terms of the order dated 30th October, 2009. Thereafter, the Magistrate passed an order dated 24th November, 2010, whereby the application filed by the opposite party no.2 for service of warrant upon the revisionist through the Indian Embassy at Saudi Arabia or by registered post, was considered and it was directed that the recovery warrant may be served upon the revisionist through the Indian Embassy at Saudi Arabia and the matter was posted for 24th January, 2011. At this juncture, the revisionist appeared before the Court below and agreed to pay the entire amount payable in terms of the order dated 30th October, 2009 in 8 monthly installments. Consequently, the Magistrate recal