Krishna Murari Sharma and another v. State of U.P. and another) as well as impugned order dated

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.21, Agra in Criminal Appeal No.260/2024 (Krishna Murari Sharma and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as impugned order dated 11.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC Court No.1 Agra in Case No.289/2023 (Smt. Milki Sharma Vs. Yogesh Kumar Sharma and others) under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Agra. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that in this case the revisionists are sasur and saas. Complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was filed by the daughter-in-law of the revisionists against the husband, Saas, Sasur, Devar, Nand,, Nandoi and dadia sasur. He further submits that an application in the form of preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the complaint under Section 12 of the Act was moved. It was decided on 11.09.2024, by which the learned trial court has directed to strike off the names of Nanad and Nandoi from the complaint made by the opposite party but it is to continue against the revisionist nos.1 & 2 and husband and devar of 2 CRLR No. 5441 of 2025 opposite party no.2. This order was challenged in appeal before the learned appellate court and appeal was also dismissed illegally without considering the averments made by the revisionists. He further submits that the complaint was filed by the revisionists before the competent authority regarding their harassment by opposite party no.2 and her husband on which proper order was passed by the concerned authority but it was also not taken into consideration by the learned appellate court. He also submits that no any harassment was made by the revisionists with the opposite party no.2, when she was in her sasural prior to the year 2019 and later on she is living in her mayka. Learned trial court as well as learned appellate court did not consider all these facts and rejected their application as well as the appeal erroneously, therefore, orders passed by learned courts below are liable to be set aside. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and contended that the opposite party no.2 was wedded to the son of revisionist nos.1- Krishna Murari Sharma, and she was living in her sasural. She filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband, sasur (revisionist no.1), saas (revisionist no.2), nand, nandoi and other family members. The revisionist and other family member of the family except husband, had filed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of complaint, which was allowed to the extent of nand and nandoi and rejected for other revisionists. So far as, the case of revisionist nos.1 & 2 is concerned, they filed an application before the competent authority on 06.12.2019, which was allowed by the authority concerned and order was passed against the opposite party no.2 and her husband. In that complaint, the revisionists themselves admittedly stated that the opposite party no.2 was subjecting them to harassment by abusing and thereafter, she started living in her mayka. This averment made by the revisionists in their application establishes that opposite party no.2 was also living with them in Sajha Grihasti and it cannot be said that she was living separately and was not related to them. The truthfulness of the allegations made by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionists can only be decided after the evidence is led by the parties but at this stage, no such decision can be given, therefore, it cannot be said complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not maintainable against them. The learned trial court 3 CRLR No. 5441 of 2025 as well as the learned appellate court has passed the order in well manner that cannot be said illegal and the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of the record and the orders dated 11.09.2024 & 25.07.2025 passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, it appears that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was performed with the son of revisionist nos. 1 & 2 in the year 2011 and till 2019 she lived in her sasural, when she was expelled from her sasural, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, against her husband, saas, sasur, nand, nandoi and dever making allegations regarding harassment and torture. On 06.12.2019, a complaint was filed by the revisionists before the competent authority in which they stated that the opposite party no.2, was living with them and continuously used to abuse them and also insulted them and, thereafter, she started living in her mayka. This averments of the revisionists also support the fact that she was living with them prior to the year 2019 and then she started living in her mayka. At this stage, it cannot be decided finally as to whether the allegations made by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionists are true or false but it can be possible only after giving opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionists for maintainability of complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be said to be illegal and likewise the order passed by the appellate court dated

25.07.2025 but the revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. September 22, 2025 S.K. (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.21, Agra in Criminal Appeal No.260/2024 (Krishna Murari Sharma and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as impugned order dated 11.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC Court No.1 Agra in Case No.289/2023 (Smt. Milki Sharma Vs. Yogesh Kumar Sharma and others) under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Agra. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that in this case the revisionists are sasur and saas. Complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was filed by the daughter-in-law of the revisionists against the husband, Saas, Sasur, Devar, Nand,, Nandoi and dadia sasur. He further submits that an application in the form of preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the complaint under Section 12 of the Act was moved. It was decided on 11.09.2024, by which the learned trial court has directed to strike off the names of Nanad and Nandoi from the complaint made by the opposite party but it is to continue against the revisionist nos.1 & 2 and husband and devar of 2 CRLR No. 5441 of 2025 opposite party no.2. This order was challenged in appeal before the learned appellate court and appeal was also dismissed illegally without considering the averments made by the revisionists. He further submits that the complaint was filed by the revisionists before the competent authority regarding their harassment by opposite party no.2 and her husband on which proper order was passed by the concerned authority but it was also not taken into consideration by the learned appellate court. He also submits that no any harassment was made by the revisionists with the opposite party no.2, when she was in her sasural prior to the year 2019 and later on she is living in her mayka. Learned trial court as well as learned appellate court did not consider all these facts and rejected their application as well as the appeal erroneously, therefore, orders passed by learned courts below are liable to be set aside. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and contended that the opposite party no.2 was wedded to the son of revisionist nos.1- Krishna Murari Sharma, and she was living in her sasural. She filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband, sasur (revisionist no.1), saas (revisionist no.2), nand, nandoi and other family members. The revisionist and other family member of the family except husband, had filed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of complaint, which was allowed to the extent of nand and nandoi and rejected for other revisionists. So far as, the case of revisionist nos.1 & 2 is concerned, they filed an application before the competent authority on 06.12.2019, which was allowed by the authority concerned and order was passed against the opposite party no.2 and her husband. In that complaint, the revisionists themselves admittedly stated that the opposite party no.2 was subjecting them to harassment by abusing and thereafter, she started living in her mayka. This averment made by the revisionists in their application establishes that opposite party no.2 was also living with them in Sajha Grihasti and it cannot be said that she was living separately and was not related to them. The truthfulness of the allegations made by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionists can only be decided after the evidence is led by the parties but at this stage, no such decision can be given, therefore, it cannot be said complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not maintainable against them. The learned trial court 3 CRLR No. 5441 of 2025 as well as the learned appellate court has passed the order in well manner that cannot be said illegal and the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of the record and the orders dated 11.09.2024 & 25.07.2025 passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court, it appears that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was performed with the son of revisionist nos. 1 & 2 in the year 2011 and till 2019 she lived in her sasural, when she was expelled from her sasural, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, against her husband, saas, sasur, nand, nandoi and dever making allegations regarding harassment and torture. On 06.12.2019, a complaint was filed by the revisionists before the competent authority in which they stated that the opposite party no.2, was living with them and continuously used to abuse them and also insulted them and, thereafter, she started living in her mayka. This averments of the revisionists also support the fact that she was living with them prior to the year 2019 and then she started living in her mayka. At this stage, it cannot be decided finally as to whether the allegations made by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionists are true or false but it can be possible only after giving opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties. In this way, the order passed by the learned trial court while rejecting the application of the revisionists for maintainability of complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be said to be illegal and likewise the order passed by the appellate court dated

25.07.2025 but the revision being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. September 22, 2025 S.K. (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad