240.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Suman .... Petitioner Versus Parveen and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, for the petitioner.

------

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

CRM-41941-2022 This is an application for condonation of delay of 84 days in filing the present revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 84 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned CRR-2336-2022

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- complainant impugning the judgment dated 17.11.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, whereby respondent No.1-Parveen has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him, and the judgment dated 30.09.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The investigation was set into motion on the complaint filed by the complainant-Suman wherein it was alleged that she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against respondent No.1-Parveen, which was decided by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, vide order dated 17.11.2010, whereby respondent No.1-Parveen was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month on account of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the petition and he was further directed to provide a room to her to reside in the shared house. The said judgment was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, in an appeal preferred by the respondent. It was further alleged in the complaint that the respondent failed to comply with the said directions and, therefore, action be taken against him. Consequently, FIR No.346, dated 14.09.2011, under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani, was registered against the respondent.

3. After considering the whole matter, the respondent was acquitted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 17.11.2015 and the relevant portion from the said judgment reads thus:-

“10. In the present case, accused Parveen has been implicated under section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which provides penalty for breach of Protection order by respondent. Protection orders have been contained in section 18 from Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

11. The protection orders which may be passed are detailed under section 18 of the DV Act and violation, if any, thereof has been dealt with by Section 31 of the said Act. In the order dated 17.11.2010 so passed by the then Ld. JMIC, Bhiwani, the accused was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month to the complainant and was further directed to provide her a room to reside in the shared household. Now coming to the facts detailed in the complaint so filed by the complainant in the Court which has been proved on the file as Ex.PW2/A, a close scrutiny thereof reveals that there are no specific allegations against the accused as to how and in what manner he has violated the protection order passed in favour of the complainant rather the complainant has simply stated that the accused persons have breached the protection order and has not complied the same. From the perusal of Section 18 it is revealed that non payment of maintenance amount or non- providing of separate room to the petitioner does not come in the category breach of Protection order. Again there are no allegations against the accused that he by his any of the act and conduct caused any mental agony to the complainant and has thus made violation of the protection order. There is no mention in the complaint that the accused ever interfered in the life of the complainant by doing any act of domestic violence.