IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 61 of 2025 Sashirekha Maharana …. Petitioner Mr. P.K.Satapathy, Advocate -Versus-

Saraswati Maharana & …. Opposite Parties another None CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

06.11.2025 Order No.

07. 1. Heard Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. None appears for the opposite parties at the time of call. 3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 19^th November, 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur arising out of D.V. Misc. Case No. 139 of 2022 confirming the order dated 11^th August, 2023 passed therein by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women’s Court), Jagatsinghpur on the grounds inter alia that the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside since not legally tenable.

4. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the sister of opposite party No.1 and daughter of opposite party No.2 and is in a domestic relationship with them. The further submission is that as an aggrieved person, the petitioner approached the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women’s Court), Jagatsinghpur with an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) registered as D.V. Misc. Case No. 139 of 2022, a copy of which is at Annexure-3 seeking right of residence in terms of Section 19 thereof and for the ancillary reliefs but for an objection received from the opposite parties at Annexure-4 on maintainability of the same, it has led to the passing of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-2 and finally, upheld in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2023 vide Annexure-1. The submission is that such an application under Section 12 of the Act could not have been disposed of and dismissed when the petitioner is in a domestic relationship and is entitled to reliefs thereunder. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not only entitled to right of residence but also eligible for other reliefs on account of the domestic violence alleged against the opposite parties especially with regard to economic abuse defined in Section 3 of the Act. The contention is that the learned courts below fell into serious error and illegality in dismissing the application under Section 12 of the Act on the premise that there is no domestic violence committed against the petitioner. According to Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel, the Court of first instance though held that there is absence of domestic relationship which has, however, been overruled by the Court of appeal but ultimately, the application Section 12 of the Act stood dismissed on the ground of absence of any such domestic violence committed by the opposite parties but having regard to the nature of reliefs sought for, such a proceeding initiated under the Act couldnot have been dismissed at the threshold, hence, therefore, the impugned judgments as at Annexures-1 & 2 are liable to be set aside followed by consequential directions issued in that regard.

5. Perused the copy of the application filed under Section 12 of the Act as at Annexure-3. An objection to the maintainability of such an application was received from the opposite parties and the same is at Annexure-4 and the same is gone through. A copy of the objection to the maintainability petition is at Annexure-5 received from the petitioner and it is also perused. Considering the application as at Annexure-4 and objection of the petitioner i.e. Annexure-5, the learned Court below disposed of the DV proceeding vide Annexure-2 and dismissed the same. As earlier stated, the Court of first instance concluded that there is absence of domestic relationship between the parties since the petitioner is a married daughter of opposite party No.2, however, with an appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur reached at a conclusion that the