IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 215 of 2008 1. Bhoop Singh s/o Kishori Lal 2. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Bhoop Singh Both are R/o J –362 Shiwalik Nagar BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar. 3. Purushotam S/o Jyoti Prasad R/o Rajghat Kankhal, P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar. ...…………. Revisionists Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Meenakshi @ Meenu W/o Late Rajeev Sharma D/o late Baburam Sharma R/o Ramgarh, Kharkhari, Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Suresh Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the revisionists. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondents 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.09.2008, passed by I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in Criminal Misc. Complaint Case No. 257 of 2008), and order dated 06.11.2008, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / III F.T.C. Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2008, affirming the order of the 2 aforesaid order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was filed by respondent No. 2 Meenakshi @ Meenu, a widow, against the revisionists namely Bhoop Singh (father-in-law), Sanjeev Kumar (brother-in-law) and Purushotam (father-in-law of Sanjeev) for reliefs under Section 18 and 19 of the aforesaid Act. It appears that vide impugned order dated 15.09.2008, while issuing notices to the respondents (present revisionists), as required under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act, the Magistrate passed the interim order exercising his powers under Section 23 of the Act. Vide interim order dated 15.09.2008, passed in Misc. Complaint Case No. 257 of 2008, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, directed that the opposite parties (present revisionists) shall allow the residence to respondent No. 2 Meenakshi in House No. J –362, Shiwalik Nagar, B.H.E.L., within the limits of police station Ranipur, District Haridwar. Aggrieved by said order, the present revisionists preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2008. After hearing the parties, said appeal was 3 disposed of vide impugned order dated 06.11.2008, by Addl. Sessions Judge / III F.T.C., Haridwar, affirming the order of the Magistrate. Hence, this revision. 4) Learned counsel for the revisionists drew attention of this Court to Section 13 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which provides that a notice of date of hearing shall be given by the Magistrate through the Protection Officer to the concerned respondent. It is contended on behalf of the revisionists that before notice could be served, as is apparent from the impugned order passed by the Magistrate, the direction was issued to allow the residence to respondent No. 2 / complainant. In reply to this learned counsel for respondent No. 2 / complainant submitted that Section 23 of the aforesaid Act itself empowers the Magistrate to pass interim ex parte orders on being satisfied as to the prima facie case against the respondent relating to domestic violence. On perusal of said provision, this Court finds that Section 23 does empower the Magistrate to pass interim relief in respect of any of the reliefs sought under the Act. After reading both the Sections i.e. Section 13 and Section 23 of the Act, this Court finds that though, it is necessary to get the service done on the respondent before the final orders are passed, interim ex parte orders can be passed under Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, merely for the reason that the Magistrate passed interim order before service of notice on the 4 revisionists, does not nullify it. Perusal of the papers on record shows that now after interim order was passed, the revisionists have already filed their objections. As such, the other factual pleas which are raised before this Court can be argued before the Magistrate concerned, who is empowered to pass the final orders on the application moved under Section 12 of the Act, before it. 5) With the above observation, this revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 12, 2010. H. Negi