# Smt. Deep Sharma & Anr. Revisionists v. Smt. Binu Sharma & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 624
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No.3839 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-deep-sharma-anr-revisionists-v-smt-binu-sharma-ors-50397
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 29 - shared
household/rented accommodation.

(B) Criminal Law - The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 2(a),3 - aggrieved person -
respondent
must
not
only
stand
in
domestic relationship with the aggrieved
person but he should be one who has
subjected
the
aggrieved
person
to
domestic violence. (Para -14)

(C) Criminal Law - The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Chapter IV - kinds of orders which can
be passed against the 'respondent' -
Sections 18 to 22 - relief can only be
granted
against
the
respondent/respondents - any person who
is not a respondent or who is not found
involved in domestic violence, cannot be
brought within the purview of this Act -
courts cannot pass order against any
other person on the basis of perceived
threats or interference - If such a course
of action is allowed this shall set a very
dangerous
trend,
the
consequences
whereof cannot be foreseen.(Para-14)

Opposite party filed a complaint - against her
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeths,
and jethanis - under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act - Trial court
found her guilty - appellant appealed -
appellate court partially allowed appeal -
modified relief under Section 19 and 20 -
dismissed rest - trial court affirmed the rest,
excluding mentioned portions - trial court found
- husband was responsible for domestic violence
against his wife - failed to prove allegations
against rest of family members - court granted
wife's right to stay in the shared household -
made a provision for alternative relief -
providing rent for separate accommodation -
Court seeks reasons for appellate court's
modification
of
shared
household/rented
accommodation order - appellate court ruled -
house/residence
in
question
falls
under
definition of a shared household - husband and
wife once lived together on ground floor - rest
of family members lived on upper floors - court
affirmed
that
no
domestic
violence
was
7 All. Smt. Deep Sharma & Anr. Vs. Smt. Binu Sharma & Ors.
625
committed by rest of family members, including
revisionists. (Para -2 ,4,9,10)

HELD:-Trial court did not interfere with order
assuming revisionist interference. Appellate's
order
set
aside
due
to
illegality
and
impropriety.(Para -15)

Revision allowed. (E-7)

## Text

624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in terms of provisions of Section 258
Cr.P.C. It may be made clear that this
aspect of the matter is distinct and separate
from compounding of the case where both
the parties agree. The revisional court has
remanded the matter to decide it afresh as
per law laid down in M/s Meters and
Instruments Private Limited and Another
vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra). By the
aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has
emphasized that where an appropriate
amount has been offered/deposited, the trial
court may consider to drop the proceeding.
Definitely the objections, if any, in this
regard shall be taken into consideration The
court has not lost its power of discretion in
such matters. In view of the above I do not
find any cause for interference.

9. Accordingly, this criminal revision
is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 624
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No.3839 of 2022

Smt. Deep Sharma & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
Smt. Binu Sharma & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ishir Sripat, Sri Pramod Kumar, Sri
Rahul Sripat (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Kumwar Rajan, Sri Randhir Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 29 - shared
household/rented accommodation.

(B) Criminal Law - The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 2(a),3 - aggrieved person -
respondent
must
not
only
stand
in
domestic relationship with the aggrieved
person but he should be one who has
subjected
the
aggrieved
person
to
domestic violence. (Para -14)

(C) Criminal Law - The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Chapter IV - kinds of orders which can
be passed against the 'respondent' -
Sections 18 to 22 - relief can only be
granted
against
the
respondent/respondents - any person who
is not a respondent or who is not found
involved in domestic violence, cannot be
brought within the purview of this Act -
courts cannot pass order against any
other person on the basis of perceived
threats or interference - If such a course
of action is allowed this shall set a very
dangerous
trend,
the
consequences
whereof cannot be foreseen.(Para-14)

Opposite party filed a complaint - against her
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeths,
and jethanis - under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act - Trial court
found her guilty - appellant appealed -
appellate court partially allowed appeal -
modified relief under Section 19 and 20 -
dismissed rest - trial court affirmed the rest,
excluding mentioned portions - trial court found
- husband was responsible for domestic violence
against his wife - failed to prove allegations
against rest of family members - court granted
wife's right to stay in the shared household -
made a provision for alternative relief -
providing rent for separate accommodation -
Court seeks reasons for appellate court's
modification
of
shared
household/rented
accommodation order - appellate court ruled -
house/residence
in
question
falls
under
definition of a shared household - husband and
wife once lived together on ground floor - rest
of family members lived on upper floors - court
affirmed
that
no
domestic
violence
was
7 All. Smt. Deep Sharma & Anr. Vs. Smt. Binu Sharma & Ors.
625
committed by rest of family members, including
revisionists. (Para -2 ,4,9,10)

HELD:-Trial court did not interfere with order
assuming revisionist interference. Appellate's
order
set
aside
due
to
illegality
and
impropriety.(Para -15)

Revision allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir Sripat,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Randhir
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no. 1 and Sri O.P. Mishra,
learned AGA for the State, are present.
None responds on behalf of respondent nos.
2 to 6.

2. By means of this criminal revision
the revisionist Smt. Deep Sharma and
Yagyawal Sharma have challenged an
order dated 27.08.2022 passed by Special
Judge (Gangster Act) Additional District
and Session Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad
in a criminal appeal no. 204 of 2019, under
Section 29 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police
Station Sahibabad, District
Ghaziabad
arising out of Case No. 585 of 2019 (Smt.
Binu Sharma vs. Dhirendra Kaushik and
Others), under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by which the
appeal was partly allowed and the order
passed by the trial court was modified.

3. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir
Sripat, learned counsel for the revisionist,
Sri Randhir Singh, learned counsel for
respondent no. 1 and Sri O.P. Mishra,
learned AGA for the State and perused the
material on record. None responds on
behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 6.

4. The relevant facts are as below:-

The respondent no. 1-Smt Binu
Sharma filed against final order passed in
a complaint case no. 585 of 2019 against
her husband, father in-law, mother in-law,
jeths and jethanis under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act (herein after referred to "the
Act")with certain allegations; the trial
court gave a finding that her husband
committed domestic violence and not rest
of the opposite parties; the learned trial
court
allowed
the
relief
to
the
revisionist/applicant Smt. Binu Sharma by
order dated 11.09.2019 under Sections 18,
19, 20 and 22 of the Act against her
husband only; the appellant Binu Sharma
filed an appeal no. 204 of 2019 against the
respondents challenging the trial court's
order with a prayer that she is entitled for
relief against all the respondents who
included her mother in-law, father in-law,
jeths and jethanis; her husband-Dhirendra
Kaushik filed another (cross) appeal no.
209 of 2019 against his wife praying for
setting aside the order of the trial court
dated 11.09.2019; the learned appellate
court heard both the appeals together and
modified the order to certain extent; the
learned appellate court, partly allowing the
appeal no. 204 of 2019 modified the relief
granted under Section 19 of the Act to the
extent that all the respondents/opposite
parties were directed to not to interfere in
her right to entry and residence in a shared
household and dismissed the rest of the
prayer of the appellant Smt. Binu Sharma;
At the same time the learned appellate
court partly allowed the appeal of husband
appeal no. 209 of 2019 and modified the
relief granted under section 20 of the Act to
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the extent that the wife shall be entitled for
Rs. 6,000/- per month instead of earlier Rs.
8,000/- per month and their daughter shall
be entitled for Rs. 5,000/- per month
instead of earlier Rs. 6,000/- per month;
the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal for the rest of the reliefs claimed by
the husband; the learned trial court
affirmed rest of the order passed by the
trial court excluding the portions as above.

5. The grounds taken in this revision
are as below:-

(i) The order passed by the
appellate court is devoid of reasoning, is
illegal and passed against the evidence
available on record;

(ii) The son of the revisionist i.e.
husband of Smt. Binu Sharma has not been
residing with their parents and instead he
resided in a rented accommodation in
District Gautam Buddh Nagar and this fact
is admitted therefore the appellate court
cannot legally direct the revisionist to let
their daughter in-law reside in their house
where the revisionist are residing;

(iii) The house in question was
purchased by the revisionist no. 1 out of
her own personal resources and that she
broke all relations with her son and
daughter
in-law
and
therefore,
the
revisionist
cannot
be
compelled
to
accommodate the respondent no. 1; their
accommodation cannot be treated as
shared household; moreover there is a
finding given by the appellate court that no
domestic violence was committed by the
revisionists, therefore no relief can be
given against them;

(iv) The husband, has stated in a
reply filed in misc. case no. 26 of 2020 filed
under Section 31 of the Act that he is ready
to keep his wife with him or in any other
rented accommodation of his choice, hence
it is not at all justified for the court to
direct the revisionists to let her reside in
their own house;

(v) The trial court failed to
appreciate the fact that they produced
enough of evidence by filing CCTV footage
and other material to show that it was their
daughter in-law who has been harassing
them and assaulted them on several
occasions and that the revisionist are
senior citizens, hence granting relief
against them is not only illegal but is
nothing but abuse of process of law; the
proceeding initiated by the daughter in-law
is malafide and malicious;

(vi) The directions given by the
appellate court are against the pleading of
the parties and against the evidence given
by the both the sides, hence is liable to be
set aside.

6. For clarity it is repeated that the
contentions of the respondent no. 1-Smt.
Binu Sharma are that she, used to reside in
the residence at Ghaizabad, with her inlaws, therefore, the Ghaziabad residence is
her shared household and she has right to
reside there; In this view of the matter the
directions given by the court cannot be
faulted and are correct factually and legally
both.

7. It may be noted at the very outset
that the trial court while allowing the
application filed by Smt. Binu Sharma
(against her husband and rest of her family
members as well) granted relief against her
husband only and no direction was passed
against the present revisionist (or any other
members of husband's family). For clarity,
7 All. Smt. Deep Sharma & Anr. Vs. Smt. Binu Sharma & Ors.
627
it may be repeated that her husband
(respondent no. 2 herein) was directed not
to commit any domestic violence, provide
for her safe entry and residence in the
shared household or to provide rent for
separate accommodation in alternative and
certain
other
monetary
reliefs
under
Sections 20 and 22 of the Act; the
revisionists have challenged the appellate
court's order insofar as they were directed
to provide safe entry and residence in the
shared household at Ghaziabad; rest of the
order
passed
by
the
trial
court
is
unchallenged.

8. From the perusal of the material on
record and from the arguments of both the
sides, there is no serious challenge to the
facts that the husband has been living
separately in Gautam Buddh Nagar since
the disputes arose and that the wife is
claiming her right to reside in a house, in
which undisputedly her father in-law and
mother in-law and rest of the family
members are presently residing. This
evidence has come before the court below
that initially the husband and the wife have
been residing in ground floor and other
member of husband's family were residing
on first and second floor of the same house.
The main crux of the arguments of the
revisionists is that they produced evidence
before the court below to show that it was
their daughter in-law who has been
harassing and assaulting them, therefore the
order is not at all proper and justified and
that, as that house is a separate house
owned exclusively by Smt. Deep Sharma
(the mother in-law) purchased from her
own resources, therefore, it cannot be
treated as shared household. In addition,
this fact is vehemently stressed by the
revisionist that no finding has been given
by the courts below that they ever
committed any domestic violence, therefore
legally such an order cannot be passed
against them.

9. In this case the learned trial court
evaluated and appreciated evidence given
by both the sides and gave a finding that
the husband and wife have been living
together in a house at Ghaziabad on ground
floor only and that rest of the family
members were staying at upper floors. On
the basis of the aforesaid facts as well as
certain other facts and circumstances, the
trial court took a view that it was husband
alone who indulged in domestic violence
against his wife and that she failed to prove
the allegations against rest of them. The
learned trial court on the basis of
appreciation of evidence found no real
challenge to the fact that the house at
Ghaziabad
was
a
shared
household,
therefore, wife was entitled to stay there.
However, most probably in the light of
certain facts coming in evidence, the
learned trial court found it proper to make a
provision for alternative relief of providing
certain amount as rent for separate
accommodation, that too subject to certain
conditions. Now the court has to look for
the reasons which prompted the learned
appellate court to modify the trial court's
order regarding shared household/rented
accommodation.

10. In this view of the matter, I
perused the judgment of appellate court.
The learned appellate court formally
framed some points of determination. The
learned appellate court went on to discuss
the definition of shared household given in
relevant
law.
It
found
that
the
house/residence in question came within
the definition of shared household. What is
important to be noticed that the appellate
court, thereafter considered the question of
commission of domestic violence and
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affirmed the finding given by the learned
trial court that no domestic violence was
committed by the rest of the family
members, (who included the present
revisionists). The learned appellate court
observed and affirmed the aforesaid finding
in view of facts that the husband and the
wife once lived together on the ground
floor and rest of the family members on
upper floors; and that not only they were
residing separately but they have been
separate in the matters of fooding as well;
they were having separate arrangements in
other aspects of living.

11. In para 7 of the judgment, while on
one hand the learned appellate court agreed
with the view taken by the learned trial court
that no domestic violence was committed by
rest of the family members (except husband),
went on to consider the arguments given by the
appellants that in case the relief under Section
19 of the Act is not given against rest of the
family members then it will not be possible for
her to reside and stay in the ground floor of the
same house without interference. The learned
appellate court held as below:-

"उक्त के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कक धारा 19 घरेलू
कहिंसा अकधकनयम का अनुतोष अन्य कवपक्षीगण के कवरुद्ध नहीं किया
गया है जबकक यह तथ्य स्थाकपत है कक उस भवन में सभी कवपक्षीगण
ककसी प्रक्रम्य पर एक साथ कनवास करते थे। यह तथ्य भी
उकललखेनीय है कक पररवाकिनी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्राथथना पत्र के बाि
पररवाकिनी के सास ससुर के द्वारा अपने लडके धीरेन्र के साथ
अथवा पररवाकिनी के पकत को अपने सम्पकि से बेिखल कर किया
गया है। ऐसी कस्थकत में तो अन्य कवपक्षीगण के कवरुद्ध धारा 19 का
अनुतोष नही किया जाये तो कवचारण न्यायालय के द्वारा किया गया
आिेश कनष्प्प्रभावी हो जायेगा क्योकक अन्य कवपक्षीगण का हस्तक्षेप
स्वभाकवक है। ऐसी कस्थत में धारा 19 की बावत किया गया कनणथय
पररवकतथत ककये जाने योग्य है तथा अपीलाथी के इस तकथ के आधार
पर आलोच्य कनणथय में पररवतथन ककया जाना उकचत है।"

12. The Protection Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has certain
social purpose to achieve. The object of
this Act is to protect the women who have
been subject to domestic violence. The
reliefs which may be granted under this Act
are quite wide in extent. There is an attempt
to take care of all the probable reliefs
leaving scope for moulding them which, in
the peculiarity of circumstances of each
case may be required. The moot point
which arises in this case is whether any
kind of directions can be issued to any
person in domestic relationship when the
complainant failed to prove the allegations
of domestic violence against him?

13. I find it pertinent to reproduce
Section 19 of the Act which is as below:-

"(1) While disposing of an
application under sub-section (1) of section
12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied
that domestic violence has taken place,
pass a residence order--

(a) restraining the respondent
from dispossessing or in any other manner
disturbing the possession of the aggrieved
person from the shared household, whether
or not the respondent has a legal or
equitable interest in the shared household;

(b) directing the respondent to
remove himself from the shared household;

(c) restraining the respondent or
any of his relatives from entering any
portion of the shared household in which
the aggrieved person resides;

(d) restraining the respondent
from alienating or disposing off the shared
household or encumbering the same;

(e) restraining the respondent
from renouncing his rights in the shared
7 All. Smt. Deep Sharma & Anr. Vs. Smt. Binu Sharma & Ors.
629
household except with the leave of the
Magistrate; or

(f) directing the respondent to
secure
same
level
of
alternate
accommodation for the aggrieved person
as enjoyed by her in the shared household
or to pay rent for the same, if the
circumstances so require:

Provided that no order under
clause (b) shall be passed against any
person who is a woman.

(2) The Magistrate may impose
any additional conditions or pass any other
direction which he may deem reasonably
necessary to protect or to provide for the
safety of the aggrieved person or any child
of such aggrieved person.

(3) The Magistrate may require
from the respondent to execute a bond, with
or without sureties, for preventing the
commission of domestic violence.

(4) An order under sub-section
(3) shall be deemed to be an order under
Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall be
dealt with accordingly.

(5) While passing an order under
sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or subsection (3), the court may also pass an
order directing the officer in charge of the
nearest police station to give protection to
the aggrieved person or to assist her or the
person making an application on her behalf
in the implementation of the order.

(6) While making an order under
sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose
on the respondent obligations relating to
the discharge of rent and other payments,
having regard to the financial needs and
resources of the parties.

(7) The Magistrate may direct the
officer in-charge of the police station in
whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been
approached to assist in the implementation
of the protection order.

(8) The Magistrate may direct the
respondent to return to the possession of
the aggrieved person her stridhan or any
other property or valuable security to
which she is entitled to."

Bare perusal of Section 19 of the
Act demonstrates that order can only be
passed against a respondent. Now a
question arises who is a respondent?

14. I went through the provisions of
law given in the Act. The scheme of things,
in my view appears that the women should
be protected from any person, who is guilty
of committing domestic violence as defined
in section 3 of the Act. All kinds of
probable violence have been included in
the definition, but by no stretch of
imagination, it can be construed that a
person
against
whom
allegations
of
domestic violence could not be proved can
be directed under the provisions of section
18 and 19 etc under Chapter IV of the Act.
The courts are not empowered to direct any
person whose act does not fall in the
purview of the Act.

Section 2(a) which defines an
aggrieved person under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
is as below:-

"aggrieved person" means any
woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alleges to have been subjected to any act of
domestic violence by the respondent."

Meaning thereby the respondent
must
not
only
stand
in
domestic
relationship with the aggrieved person but
he should be one who has subjected the
aggrieved person to domestic violence.
Chapter IV of the Protection of Women
from
Domestic
Violence
Act,
2005
enumerates the kinds of orders which can
be passed against the 'respondent'. The
perusal of the provisions of Sections 18 to
22 clearly show that the relief can only be
granted against the respondent/respondents.
In case the above provisions are read
together the only reasonable and sensible
conclusion which can be drawn is that any
person who is not a respondent or who is
not found involved in domestic violence,
cannot be brought within the purview of
this Act. The courts cannot pass order
against any other person on the basis of
perceived threats or interference. If such a
course of action is allowed this shall set a
very dangerous trend, the consequences
whereof cannot be foreseen. It may happen
that any person whether or not standing in
any domestic relationship and whether or
not, has committed domestic violence may
become subject of mischief which may see
no end. The reasoning given by the learned
appellate court is improper and illegal. For
the sake of arguments if it is presumed that
there may be certain other members of the
family who are likely to interfere in her
right to reside in the shared household then
such an act may amount to an offence and
action can be taken as per law.

15. In my opinion, there was no
ground to actually interfere in the order
passed by the learned trial court on the
assumption that there is likelihood of
interference by the revisionists. The order
of the appellate court suffers from illegality
and impropriety and is therefore set aside.
Accordingly this revision is allowed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 630
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J.MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 225 of 1998

Kalyan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri R.K. Porwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act,1988-
Sections
173-
enhancement
of
compensation- claimant sustained injuries
on account of the accident -He was
admitted in the hospital and only after he
was discharged that he had lodged the
First Information Report-The claimant has
also brought on record the copy of the
First Information Report-He has also
brought on record the documents relating
to the offending driver being chargesheeted and being prosecuted in the same
accident-A number of documents, relating
his
initial
treatment
at
Navjeewan
Hospital at Lakhimpur Kheri and the
documents relating to his treatment at
K.G.M.U. has been brought on record,
however, none of the aforesaid documents
have been considered by the Tribunal in
its order- The claimant has also filed a
disability certificate indicating that he had
suffered 45% disability certificate which
has also not been noticed by the Tribunal
rather there is no mention, consideration
of the said documents in the judgment