Amit Kumar Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2022, under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act, 2005”).

3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.

4. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with opposite party no.2 on 28.11.2004 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of wedlock, one son was born in the year 2007 and one daughter in 2018. The relationship between the applicant and opposite party no.2 was cordial, however, it is stated that conduct of opposite party no.2 later on was changed due to her medical condition, which was concealed from the applicant and his family members before the marriage. An application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 was filed by opposite party no.2 in the year 2015, which was registered as Complaint Case No.656 of 2015. The trial court after issuing notice to the applicant, allowed the application for interim maintenance vide order dated 17.03.2017 and Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded as interim maintenance to opposite party no.2. The applicant 2 A482 No. 7000 of 2025 being aggrieved with the order of interim maintenance, filed Application U/s 482/378/407 No.6665 of 2017 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 13.10.2017 stayed the order of interim maintenance, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- to opposite party no.2 on or before tenth day of every calendar month. Opposite party no.2 was also aggrieved with the order of interim maintenance passed by the trial court and filed Application U/s 482/378/407 No.7620 of 2017 before this Court. However, no interim order was passed in the said application and the same was connected with the application filed by the applicant vide order dated 20.11.2017. Thereafter, good sense prevailed between the parties and a compromise deed dated 15.04.2019 was arrived at between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and on the basis of the said compromise, the complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 was disposed of vide order dated 15.04.2019.

5. It is further stated that opposite party no.2 without informing the applicant came back to her matrimonial house and thereafter three FIRs were lodged by her. Opposite party no.2 also approached the trial court by filing an application on 15.12.2020 under Section 28 of the Act,2005 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C. for ensuring the compliance of the conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties and to issue recovery certificate against the applicant, which was registered as Complaint Case No.1000 of 2020. Thereafter, summons were issued to the applicant and he by filing objection on 04.09.2021 took a specific ground that the application filed by opposite party no.2 is not maintainable. The trial court after considering the case of the applicant and opposite party no.2, rejected the application filed by opposite party no.2 vide order dated

26.05.2022. Opposite party no.2 being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, filed an appeal before the appellate court under Section 29 of the Act, 2005. Objection was filed by the applicant. The appellate court decided the appeal vide impugned order dated 18.04.2025. Hence, the present application has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under Section 28(2) of the Act, 2005, the Court has no power for compliance of the terms and conditions arrived at between the parties in a compromise deed. He further submits that the appellate court remanded the case, but further 3 A482 No. 7000 of 2025 observation has been made that the terms and conditions of the compromise will be adhered and for compliance of the same, the trial court will take steps. Further submission is that the appellant court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction while issuing such a direction to the trial court, hence the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 28 of the Act, 2005 is not maintainable.

7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, while rebutting the argument of counsel for the applicant has submitted that the appellate court after considering the provisions of the Act, 2005 has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in it and the aggrieved person has every right to pursue his/her grievance before the competent court for redressal of the same at any time.

8. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act, 2005 provides that nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or in sub- section (2) of Section 23. In this regard, Section 12 of the Act, 2005, which is relevant, is quoted below:- "12. Application to Magistrate.—(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. (2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent: Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off. the amount payable under such decree and (3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto. (4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be 4 A482 No. 7000 of 2025 beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court. (5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub- section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.”

9. A bare perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act indicates that an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, 2005 indicates that the relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent.

10. A bare perusal of Section 28(2) of the Act, 2005 indicates that there is recital that the aggrieved person has remedy and the procedure and mandate provided under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 will be available. Therefore, the argument of counsel for the applicant that opposite party no.2 cannot maintain the application under Section 28(2) of the Act, 2005 has no force and falls to the ground.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the appellate court to the extent that it has remanded the matter, needs no interference. The trial court will proceed in the case in pursuance of the remand order, however, it will not be influenced by the observation made by the appellate court insofar as it has to comply the terms and conditions of the compromise. The trial court will independently apply its mind and take a decision on the evidence available on record, including the compromise deed.

12. Subject to above observations/direction, the application stands disposed of. December 5, 2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2022, under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act, 2005”).

3. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.

4. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with opposite party no.2 on 28.11.2004 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of wedlock, one son was born in the year 2007 and one daughter in 2018. The relationship between the applicant and opposite party no.2 was cordial, however, it is stated that conduct of opposite party no.2 later on was changed due to her medical condition, which was concealed from the applicant and his family members before the marriage. An application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 was filed by opposite party no.2 in the year 2015, which was registered as Complaint Case No.656 of 2015. The trial court after issuing notice to the applicant, allowed the application for interim maintenance vide order dated 17.03.2017 and Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded as interim maintenance to opposite party no.2. The applicant 2 A482 No. 7000 of 2025 being aggrieved with the order of interim maintenance, filed Application U/s 482/378/407 No.6665 of 2017 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 13.10.2017 stayed the order of interim maintenance, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- to opposite party no.2 on or before tenth day of every calendar month. Opposite party no.2 was also aggrieved with the order of interim maintenance passed by the trial court and filed Application U/s 482/378/407 No.7620 of 2017 before this Court. However, no interim order was passed in the said application and the same was connected with the application filed by the applicant vide order dated 20.11.2017. Thereafter, good sense prevailed between the parties and a compromise deed dated 15.04.2019 was arrived at between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and on the basis of the said compromise, the complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 was disposed of vide order dated 15.04.2019.

5. It is further stated that opposite party no.2 without informing the applicant came back to her matrimonial house and thereafter three FIRs were lodged by her. Opposite party no.2 also approached the trial court by filing an application on 15.12.2020 under Section 28 of the Act,2005 read with Section 421 Cr.P.C. for ensuring the compliance of the conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties and to issue recovery certificate against the applicant, which was registered as Complaint Case No.1000 of 2020. Thereafter, summons were issued to the applicant and he by filing objection on 04.09.2021 took a specific ground that the application filed by opposite party no.2 is not maintainable. The trial court after considering the case of the applicant and opposite party no.2, rejected the application filed by opposite party no.2 vide order dated

26.05.2022. Opposite party no.2 being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, filed an appeal before the appellate court under Section 29 of the Act, 2005. Objection was filed by the applicant. The appellate court decided the appeal vide impugned order dated 18.04.2025. Hence, the present application has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under Section 28(2) of the Act, 2005, the Court has no power for compliance of the terms and conditions arrived at between the parties in a compromise deed. He further submits that the appellate court remanded the case, but further 3 A482 No. 7000 of 2025 observation has been made that the terms and conditions of the compromise will be adhered and for compliance of the same, the trial court will take steps. Further submission is that the appellant court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction while issuing such a direction to the trial court, hence the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 28 of the Act, 2005 is not maintainable.

7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, while rebutting the argument of counsel for the applicant has submitted that the appellate court after considering the provisions of the Act, 2005 has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in it and the aggrieved person has every right to pursue his/her grievance before the competent court for redressal of the same at any time.

8. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Act, 2005 provides that nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or in sub- section (2) of Section 23. In this regard, Section 12 of the Act, 2005, which is relevant, is quoted below:- "12. Application to Magistrate.—(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. (2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent: Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off. the amount payable under such decree and (3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto. (4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be 4 A482 No. 7000 of 2025 beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court. (5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub- section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.”

9. A bare perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act indicates that an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, 2005 indicates that the relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent.

10. A bare perusal of Section 28(2) of the Act, 2005 indicates that there is recital that the aggrieved person has remedy and the procedure and mandate provided under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 will be available. Therefore, the argument of counsel for the applicant that opposite party no.2 cannot maintain the application under Section 28(2) of the Act, 2005 has no force and falls to the ground.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the appellate court to the extent that it has remanded the matter, needs no interference. The trial court will proceed in the case in pursuance of the remand order, however, it will not be influenced by the observation made by the appellate court insofar as it has to comply the terms and conditions of the compromise. The trial court will independently apply its mind and take a decision on the evidence available on record, including the compromise deed.

12. Subject to above observations/direction, the application stands disposed of. December 5, 2025 Rao/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench