SHAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Prerna Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dayshanker Pandey, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned APP for the State.

(2.) The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside the order dtd. 24/2/2015 passed in Criminal Revision No. 948 of 2010 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Patna whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 10/8/2010 passed in Domestic Violence Case No. 03 of 2008 preferred by the O.P. No.2, by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna has been rejected.

(3.) Ms. Prerna Rishi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the O.P. No.2 filed a petition on 22/1/2008 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'D.V. Act') for seeking protection under Ss. 18 and 19 of the D.V. Act and based on that petition, on 5/6/2009 behind the back of the petitioner an interim relief was granted to the O.P. No.2 restraining the petitioner from alienating any part of his joint or separate property in any manner. After passing of the said order the petitioner filed a petition before the concerned Magistrate which was decided by order dtd. 10/8/2010 directing the petitioner to file an affidavit to this effect that he had not transferred or sold any part of his land regarding which he had been debarred from alienating by the order dtd. 5/6/2009 and he was also directed to file an affidavit to this effect that he would not alienate or dispose of any of his property and it was directed that in the situation of non-compliance of the said order a proceeding under Sec. 31 of D.V. Act would be initiated against him and said order dtd. 10/8/2010 was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court by filing the Cr. Revision No. 948 of 2010 and the same was rejected by the Revisional Court vide order dtd. 24/2/2015 which is under challenge in this matter. It is further submitted that the relief granted to the O.P. No.2 under Sec. 18 of D.V. Act restraining the petitioner from alienating any land or property in which he has a joint or independent share while the O.P. No. 2 has no share or interest is completely beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate as such relief cannot be passed under Sec. 18 of D.V. Act .