SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SUBAL KUMAR PANDA – Appellant
Versus
MEGHADEEPTI MIMANSITA MOHAPATRA – Respondent
CRLREV 351/2020



Advocates:
['BHAGABAT PRASAD RATH', 'A NAYAK', 'L SAHU', 'S MISHRA', 'M/S B CH GHADEI', 'R B MISHRA', '', 'S K KANUNGO', 'B PR OJHA', 'R KU', 'SATAPATHY', 'P K PATRA', 'M/S P S NAYAK', 'S S MOHAPATRA', 'S HOTA', 'R BEHERA']

Page 1 of 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No.351 of 2020

1. Subal Kumar Panda.

2. Minati Panda.

….

Petitioners

M/s. Bhagabat Prasad Rath, A. Nayak,

L. Sahu, S. Mishra, Advocates

-versus-

1. Meghadeepti Mimansita

Mohapatra.

2. Krishna Panda.

3. Subrat Kumar Panda.

4. Pranati Mohapatra.

….

Opposite Parties

M/s. B. Ch. Ghadei, R.B. Mishra, Advocates

(For Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2)

M/s. P.S. Nayak, S.S. Mohapatra, S. Hota, R. Behera,

Advocates (For Opp.Party Nos.3 and 4)

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI

Order

No.

ORDER

27.07.2021

11.

1.

The order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the

learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in D.V. Misc. Case No.122 of

2019, a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short <the

PWDV Act=) at the instance of the present opposite

party no.1 and confirmed by the learned 2nd Addl.

Sessions

Judge,

Balasore

vide

his

order

dated

// 2 //

Page 2 of 7

19.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.08/35 of

2020/2019 is sought to be quashed at the instance of

the revision-petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of

the opposite party no.1.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned counsel appearing for the contesting

opposite parties and perused the impugned orders.

3.

The opposite party no.1 has initiated the

proceeding under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking

the several reliefs against her husband and others, and

pending disposal of the same, sought for ex-parte

interim reliefs under Sections 18 and 19 of the PWDV

Act before the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore. The learned

S.D.J.M., Balasore in purported exercise of his power

under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act, passed the ex-

parte interim order dated 16.05.2019 prohibiting the

opposite parties in the said proceeding from committing

any act of domestic violence or aiding or abetting

commission of any such violence against the present

opposite party no.1 and also directing the opposite

// 3 //

Page 3 of 7

parties including the present petitioners to allow the

present opposite party nos.1 and 2 to reside in their

house, in view of Sections 18 and 19 of the PWDV Act.

The said order was challenged by the present

petitioners before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge,

Balasore, who vide his order dated 19.03.2020 passed

in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2020 confirmed the said

order. Hence, the present criminal revision.

4.

In course of the hearing, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners submitted, inter-alia, that

both the Courts below failed to appreciate the issues in

right perspective, and the interim order purportedly

passed under Section 19 of the PWDV Act suffers from

illegality and impropriety, inasmuch as the house in

question being owned by the present petitioners cannot

be brought within the purview of the definition of the

<shared household= under Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act.

His further contention is that the learned S.D.J.M.,

Balasore exceeded his jurisdiction by granting interim

relief under Section 19 of the PWDV Act behind the

back of the present petitioners and without delving into

// 4 //

Page 4 of 7

the core question as to whether or not there was any

domestic violence.

5.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

contesting opposite parties submits that from the

impugned orders it can be necessarily implied that

there was domestic violence giving rise to initiation of

the proceeding under the PWDV Act. It is further

submitted by him that the question now raised by the

petitioners regarding <shared household= having already

been elaborately discussed and decided by the learned

Addl. Sessions Judge in exercise of his revisional

jurisdiction,

the

impugned

orders

call

for

no

interference, especially when it remains open for the

present petitioners to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top