Revision against order granting interim maintenance and closing right to reply in a DV Act interim maintenance application was withdrawn, relying on a coordinate Bench ruling that DV Act proceedings are civil and criminal revision is not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRR-291-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
227 CRR-291-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.08.2024
Ashok Kumar
.… Petitioner
Versus
Kavita .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Raj Kumar Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated 15.01.2024 in COMA/30/2022 titled as ‘ Kavita vs. Ashok Kumar ’ whereby learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonepat has closed the right to file written reply by the petitioner-husband in interim maintenance application and the respondent-wife has been granted fixed interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. from the date of application.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy within a period of four weeks from today, in accordance with law, in view of judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M19553-2023 titled as ‘ Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and others vs. State of Punjab and another ’, wherein it has been held that ‘ the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are civil in nature, therefore, a petition
DIVYANSHI 2024.08.05 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR-291-2024 (O&M) -2-
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., assailing the order passed in complaint filed under the provisions of DV Act are not maintainable’.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty aforesaid.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
02.08.2024 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI 2024.08.05 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision petition lies against orders in DV Act proceedings given their civil nature?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and others vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶13
CRM-M19553-2023
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashok Kumar
Kavita
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
