1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.31518-M of 2008. Date of Decision: 3.12.2008. *** Balwinder Kaur & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Mahan Singh & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant- petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of orders dated 3.10.2007 and 20.9.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate Nawanshahr and learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr. It emerges out from the paper book that the petitioners, who are wife and son respectively of respondent No.1 Mahan Singh filed a complaint with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act) against Mahan Singh and other in-laws. Along with the said complaint, they also filed an application under Section 12 of the Act and sought interim reliefs as provided under Sections 18 to 22 read with Section 23 of the Act. After the contest, the application for interim reliefs was declined by the trial court vide order dated 3.10.2007 and against that order, the petitioners preferred a Crl. Misc. No. 51178-M of 2007 seeing quashing of the said order, however, that petition was withdrawn with a liberty to avail appropriate remedy under the law. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, but the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 20.9.2008 holding that the only relief available to the petitioners is to file an appeal against the said order and that too within a period of thirty days and hence doubting the maintainability of the revision, dismissed the same, 2 without touching the merits of the case Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned revisional court has fallen into error of law by misinterpreting the provisions of the Act and that Sections 12, 18 to 23 of the Act are governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as such the revision was very much maintainable and Section 29 of the Act attracts only when there is final order passed by the Magistrate and an appeal would lie for the same.. There is force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. A conjoint reading of Section 12 of the Act and Rule 6(5) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (for brevity, the Rules) leaves no manner of doubt that the order passed on an application for interim relief is very much revisable before the Court of Session and as a consequence thereof, obviously, with the limitation as stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose. At this stage, learned counsel has contended that if the order passed by the revisional Court is set aside, he shall put up his case in respect of legality and propriety of order dated 3.10.2007 passed by the Magistrate, before that forum, on merits. In view of this, the impugned order dated 20.9.2008 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to it with a direction to admit the revision of the petitioners and disposed it of expeditiously, after hearing the parties on merit, that too without insisting on the point of limitation. The instant petition is disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party, since in the considered opinion of this Court they have to unnecessarily bear heavy expenses to contest this litigation. However, liberty is given to the respondents to file an application for recalling of this order, if they are dis-satisfied with the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 3,2008 Jiten