The petitioner herein is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 25th November, 2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Barrackpore in Criminal Revision case no. 402 of 2025. By the impugned order, learned court below had dismissed the criminal revision and thereby affirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 6.11.2025.

In the instant case, the opposite party/wife filed an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the concerned Magistrate directed the officer to make necessary arrangement so that the residence of the defacto-complainant can be restored at her matrimonial home and the accused does not dispossess her in future and it was further directed that I/C Bhatpara Police Station shall make arrangement through the Investigating officer of this case regarding protection of the defacto-complainant at her matrimonial home, so that no kind of torture could be inflicted upon her by the accused persons.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the self-same day i.e. 6.11.2025, an order of temporary injunction was also passed on ad-interim basis on the prayer of the plaintiff i.e. the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party herein and the said suit was filed against the complainant herein and her husband and a temporary injunction order was granted thereby restraining the defendants i.e. complainant herein and her husband from disturbing plaintiff’s possession in respect of the suit property till a particular date, which was subsequently extended from time to time.

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 6.11.2025, a revisional application was filed being Criminal Revision no. 402 of 2025 but the revisional court affirmed the order of the Trial court.

Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned revisional court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned suffers from material irregularity as both the courts below failed to appreciate that the relief claimed by filing applications in the instant proceeding, could not be granted by the learned Trial Judge. The opposite party no. 2 herein had voluntarily left her matrimonial home on 19th October, 2025 and thereafter revisited her matrimonial home to collect stridhan articles. The learned Appellate court had also acted illegally and with material irregularity by not appreciating that the opposite party no. 2 herein had appeared on 04.12.2025 in the aforesaid Title Suit and had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 15.12.2025. But at the time of hearing of the instant G.R. case no. 8099 of 2025, she has kept the trial court in dark with regard to the aforementioned order of injunction i.e. not to disturb plaintiffs’ possession and as such, the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 was pleased to direct the Investigating Officer to make necessary arrangements for execution of the order dated 6.11.2025 passed by the learned Trial Judge.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the application stands admitted.

The Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the application upon the opposite party no. 2 by speed post and upon the State through the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta intimating the next date of hearing and to file affidavit of service on the returnable date.

Let the matter appear in the Monthly list of June, 2026 under the heading “Contested Application”.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for interim relief.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, let the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Trial Judge, Barrackpore be stayed for a period of twelve weeks or until further order, whichever is earlier.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to