Back
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90613
A.F.R.
RESERVED
In Chambers
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8348 of 2023
Petitioner :- Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritvik Upadhya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Singh,Saurabh Raj
Srivastava
Domestic Violence Act - Immovable Property - Interim Relief
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is the daughter of late Vibhuti Narain Singh, the erstwhile ruler of the State of Banaras, and has been continuously living in the Ramnagar Fort since childhood. After the death of her father, the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent no. 2, her younger sibling, who took custody of various documents including a recorded family settlement. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in 2011, which resulted in an interim order restraining the respondent no. 2 from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the shared household. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application under Section 23 of the DV Act in 2021, seeking a protection order under Section 18 to restrain the respondent no. 2 from alienating certain immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the application, which were part of the family settlement. The trial court and the appellate court rejected the application, holding that the civil court has jurisdiction over the immovable properties and not the criminal court under the DV Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court observed that the definition of 'domestic violence' under the DV Act is very wide and includes 'economic abuse', which encompasses the alienation of assets, whether movable or immovable, in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship. The High Court held that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to grant a protection order under Section 18 of the DV Act with respect to the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the application dated 30.10.2021, subject to the petitioner amending the initial application under Section 12 to incorporate the additional relief sought.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to grant a protection order under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with respect to the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the application dated 30.10.2021 filed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the definition of 'domestic violence' under the DV Act is very wide and includes 'economic abuse', which encompasses the alienation of assets, whether movable or immovable, in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship. The High Court further held that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to grant a protection order under Section 18 of the DV Act with respect to the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the application dated 30.10.2021, subject to the petitioner amending the initial application under Section 12 to incorporate the additional relief sought.
Final Decision: The High Court disposed of the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the civil court in which the suit is pending, seeking appropriate temporary injunction or protection order. The High Court also directed that for a period of five months from the date of the order, none of the parties to the petition will create any third party interest over any part of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the application dated 30.10.2021.
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 U.P. 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 30.10.20211 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 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. 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, 20052 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 DV Act 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 of the order dated 12.4.2022. By the impugned ju
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
