By the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2014 the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala has observed that :

“I have gone through the impugned order and in that connection, the order passed by the learned Court below in C.R. 237 of 2011 on 22.08.2012 granting various reliefs to the petitioner. In that order, learned Court below referring to Section 18 sub section 8 of the Act passed the direction to the respondent herein to return the stridhans including the cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant. It is obvious that due to an inadvertent error learned Court below referred sub section 8 of Section 18 of the Act which ought to have been sub section 8 of Section 19 of the Act firstly because there is no existence of any sub section under Section 18 of the Act and secondly, it is sub section 8 of Section 19 of the Act which empowers the Magistrate to direct the respondent to return the stridhans to the aggrieved person. Now, turning to Section 31 of the Act, it provides for penalty for breach of protection order passed in favour of the aggrieved person. The Section specifically mentions that a breach of any protection order or interim protection order by the respondent shall be punishable with imprisonment. It is thus evident that it is only the protection order passed under Section 18 of the Act that would come within the scope of Section 31 of the Act. Learned Court below in the impugned order has very nicely drove her point home giving reference to various citations.

I have gone through the citations referred by leaned Counsel for the appellant which were in fact also referred before the learned Court below. In none of the three citations the matter in controversy in this case was addressed not being the subject matter of dispute in any of the cases. So, the citations are not at all applicable. On the other hand, the citation referred by the learned Counsel for the respondent fortifies the conclusion arrived at by the learned Court below and so also by this Court.”

[2] Having held so, the appeal preferred by the revisional petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the DV Act on questioning the legality of the order dated 20.12.2013 delivered in CR. 11 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala, West Tripura, No.4 has been dismissed. The complaint filed under Section 31 of the Act has been held to be not maintainable by the said order dated 20.12.2013 as the complaint did not disclose breach of either the protection order or the interim protection order.

[3] Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.11.2014, this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been set in motion. According to the revisional petitioner, both the courts below appreciated the records wrongly and misconstructed the provisions of Section 31 of the DV Act inasmuch as the order granting relief passed by the Magistrate has been passed under Section 18(e) of the DV Act and hence, breach of such order is amenable to the provision of Section 31 of the DV Act.

[4] Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, the legally married wife of the respondent, who is a Government employee and is posted as the Lower Divisional Clerk in the office of the Director General of Police Agartala, was denied the conjugal rights. When the petitioner took initiative to normalize the relation, she was subjected to mental and physical assault. Even for the mental stress, she was admitted for treatment in the IGM hospital, Agartala. The respondent even did not take any care while she was ill and hospitalized. Persuaded by the circumstances, she filed a petition under Sections 18, 19 and 22 of the DV Act for passing the appropriate order in the circumstances. On consideration of the evidence led by the petitioner and the respondent, the Magistrate passed the directions which re