Crl. Revision No.1903 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1903 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.11.2011 Rajwant Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus Harpreet Singh Sekhon and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.59803 of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application and with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners, hearing of the case is pre- poned, which is otherwise listed for 1.12.2011. Main revision petition is being taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. Crl. Revision No.1903 of 2011 Revisionists have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court thereby challenging the order passed by Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dated 8.8.2011 in an appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2005') thereby allowing the appeal in part setting aside order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Crl. Revision No.1903 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Faridabad, whereby learned Magistrate had restrained the respondents from disposing of, alienating or dispossessing the revisionists from the property or creating any charge on the same. Brief facts of the present case are that an application was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, by revisionists stating that revisionist No.1 and respondent No.1 got married on 9.2.2000 and from their wedlock revisionist No.2 was born; respondent No.1 is Non- resident Indian and is settled in USA right from very beginning; respondent No.1 left for USA in June, 2003 and kept on making false promises that he would take revisionists to America; respondent No.1 was paying ` 50,000/- per month for household expenses but after September, 2003 has stopped paying any amount to her, however, revisionists are residing in house No.645, Sector 16, Faridabad, which is matrimonial home of revisionist No.1. Since respondent No.1 is threatening to dispossess them from the house in question, therefore, necessity arose to file civil suit against the respondents as well as present proceedings under the provisions of Act 2005. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 13.12.2010 has directed respondent No.1 to pay ` 30,000/- per month to revisionist No.1 and ` 20,000/- per month to her minor daughter i.e. revisionist No.2 and has further restrained respondent No.2, father-in-law, from alienating, disposing of and dispossessing the revisionists from shared house i.e. H.No.645, Sector 16, Faridabad. In an appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, has set aside the part of the order passed by Magistrate whereby restraint order was passed restraining the respondents from alienating, disposing of and dispossessing the revisionists from shared Crl. Revision No.1903 of 2011 (O&M) -3- house, however, has confirmed the rest of the judgment whereby learned Magistrate has directed the husband/respondent No.1 to pay monthly alimony to the revisionists. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. The sole question involved before this Court is as to whether learned Appellate Court was justified and was well within its jurisdiction while setting aside the part of the order of the Judicial Magistrate thereby restraining the respondents not to create third party interest in the shared house and not to dispossess the revisionists from the property in question. Undisputedly, revisionists herein had filed a civil suit against Dilraj Singh Sekhon and others restraining them from interfering in the possession of the revisionists over H. No.645, Sector 16, Faridabad. In the civil suit filed by the revisionists herein, Dilraj Singh Sekhon had filed counter-claim seeking possession from the revisionists herein. Civil suit filed by the revisionists herein was dismissed by the trial Court, however, counter-claim seeking possession from the revisionists was decreed vide judgment dated 16.4.2010. Appeal preferred by the revisionists against the decree of the counter-claim against them was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 11.10.2010. Second appeal filed by the revisionists was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.3.2011. Consequently, decree of possession against the revisionists passed by the trial Court on the counter-claim of the respondents, attained finality. Now question comes if competent civil Court has granted Crl. Revision No.1903 of 2011 (O&M) -4- decree for possession, which was duly affirmed by this Court and has attained finality, can Magistrate under the provisions of Act 2005 pass an order restraining the decree-holder not to disturb the possession of the wife and minor child? As observed hereinbefore that counter-claim was decreed by the competent civil Court on 16.4.2010 while appeal filed by the revisionists was also dismissed on 11.10.2010, therefore, learned Magistrate while exercising power under Act 2005 had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass impugned order dated 13.12.2010, restraining the decree-holder not to interfere in the possession of the judgment-debtors. In the light of above discussion, in the opinion of this Court, Appellate Court was fully justified in setting aside the direction of learned Judicial Magistrate whereby respondents were restrained not to make interference in the possession of the revisionists. In the opinion of this Court, if decree passed by the civil Court had attained finality learned Magistrate while exercising power under Act 2005 had absolutely no jurisdiction to issue restraint order contrary to the civil Court decree. Therefore, Appellate Court was well justified in setting aside the part of the order of the Magistrate whereby restraint order was passed against decree-holders/respondents herein. I do not find any jurisdictional error or ground to interfere in the order passed by Appellate Court. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 07, 2011 R.S.