Economic abuse is included in the definition of domestic violence under the DV Act, allowing for protection orders while property disputes are adjudicated in civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

(Jayant Banerji, J.) :

1. Heard Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 2.6.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2022 (Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) with a further relief to prohibit and restrain the respondents from committing any act of economic abuse against the petitioner by alienating or creating in any manner whatsoever third party interest over any part of the properties as mentioned in the schedule to the application dated 30.10.2021,[This application is referred to in the instant petition as well as the counter affidavit as being dated 31.10.2021, but in the order impugned, the same is referred to as dated 30.10.2021. Therefore, that application is referred herein as dated 30.10.2021], of the petitioner (Annexure No. 7) and also not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner.

3. It appears from the record of this petition that the petitioner is the daughter of late Vibhuti Narain Singh, who was the erstwhile ruler of the State of Banaras and has been continuously living in the fort of Ramnagar since childhood. The respondent No. 2 is the youngest sibling of the petitioner and son of late Vibhuti Narain Singh who also continues to stay along with the petitioner as a family member in the Ramnagar Fort even after the demise of his father on 25.12.2000.

4. After the death of their father, it is alleged that the petitioner and another family member were subjected to misbehaviour, manhandling and torture, which were engineered to dispossess her from her residence in Ramnagar Fort and other properties to which she is entitled. The reasons for staying in her matrimonial home has been explained by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the petition. It has been stated that after the death of Vibhuti Narain Singh, domestic violence was committed by the Respondent No. 2 and he took into his custody various documents including the recorded family settlement of 8.12.1969 which was reduced in writing on 16.7.1970 and other documents of title, etc. and he created a situation in the residence which became non-conducive to the peaceful residence of the petitioner. This led to the institution of a case by means of an application under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,[DV Act] in October 2011. The court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Varanasi, by an order dated 21.10.2011, prohibited the petitioner no. 2 from interfering in the shared household in the possession of the petitioner over properties reflected in Annexure Nos. C1 and C2 of the application and not to evict her, not to create any hindrance and not to harass her during pendency of the aforesaid case under the DV Act. The order dated 21.10.2011 was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Thereafter an application under Section 23 of the DV Act was filed on 30.10.2021 seeking a direction under Section 18 of the DV Act for restraining the petitioner No. 2 from transferring the properties specified in the schedule to that application. The schedule to the application specified several plots of land with their respective areas in Mauza Kodopur, Pargana Ramnagar, Tehsil and District Varanasi. Objections were filed by the respondent No. 2 on 7.1.2021. By an order dated 12.4.2022, the trial court observed that it is the civil court which would be competent to grant the relief sought in the application dated 30.10.2021. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.4.2022, an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2022 was filed in the court of the District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi seeking setting aside