IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3708 of 2019

HARISH KUMAR AND OTHERS

Versus

SMT. RADHADEVI

Appearance:

Shri Amit Raj - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vijay Kumar Dubey- Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER of in-laws with whom she was resided.

This criminal revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 is

preferred being aggrieved by order 21.06.2019 in criminal appeal No.02/2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch (M.P.) arising out of order dated 24.11.2017 in MJC No.01/2017 by Nyayakadhikari, Janpad Panchayat, Manasa District- Neemuch (M.P) whereby amount of Rs.1,000/- per month has been awarded to the wife and Rs.700/- per month has been awarded to the son as interim relief under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005.

2. Facts in brief are that husband of respondent Radhabai expired on

08.02.2014 thereafter, she was ousted from the house and deprived from the property. An application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed in the year 2017 against the members

3. An application for interim relief was also preferred and vide order dated 24.11.2017 the application was allowed partially and order was challenged in criminal appeal under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2017. Challenging both the orders this criminal revision is preferred.

4. The main contention is that such interim relief cannot be granted, as there is no material to disclose that any act of domestic violence was committed.

5. Heard.

6. Counsel for the respondent opposes the criminal revision.

7. Before proceeding further the provisions of section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is being reproduced below:-

"23. Power to grant interim and ex parte orders (1) In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent."

8. The above provision reveals that order can be passed exparte. The material relationship is not in dispute and the scope of revision in a challenge to the order of interim maintenance is very limited, as mentioned by the Apex Court in case of Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. The State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204; relevant para 10 is being reproduced, as below: -

“10. ... the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.”

9. In the light of above limited scope and material available on record does not provide the ground to interference in the impugned orders. Hence, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 10. Record of the trial court be remitted back immediately to Nyayakadhikari, Janpad Panchayat, Manasa District- Neemuch (M.P).

11. Parties are directed to remain present on 02.02.2026 before Nyayakadhikari, Janpad Panchayat, Manasa District- Neemuch (M.P).

12. Nyayakadhikari, Janpad Panchayat, Manasa District- Neemuch (M.P) is directed to decide the case as early as possible.

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE ajit