- (1.)The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment and order of Court of Session in Criminal Appeal, which was preferred under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said appeal was against the order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. What is prayed for is a writ of certiorari to get the said judgment and order in Criminal Appeal set aside.
(2.)The following questions arise for consideration.
(i) Whether against the judgment and order deciding an appeal by Court of Session under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a remedy of revision application under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available ?

(ii) Whether, because of what is held by this Court in Narendrakumar alias Nitinkumar Manilal Shah Vs State of Gujarat and another [2014 (2) GLR 1353], a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the remedy to challenge judgment and order in appeal decided under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ?

(iii) Whether the Judicial Magistrate and Court of Session exercising their powers under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are the courts as per the hierarchy of class of criminal courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and can be subjected to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. ?

(iv) Whether on the premise and reasoning that the relief available under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature, the provisions of the Act exclude the machinery of hierarchy of courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, thereby ruling out amenability of judgment of Court of Session under Section 29 of the Act to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ?

(v) If the remedy of filing revision application under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available, whether against the impugned judgment and order, writ jurisdiction for issuance of writ of certiorari should be allowed to be maintained ?

(3.)The basic facts, leaving aside unnecessary details, may be set out. Respondent No.2 -wife initiated proceedings against the petitioner -husband and others under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.18 of 2002 under Section 12 of the Protection of the Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In her case before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, Ahmedabad, respondent No.2 stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner and after the marriage, her matrimonial life went on smoothly in the beginning, but thereafter the husband and the in -laws started harassing her. Out of the wedlock four children were born. In the application, the wife made various allegations regarding mental and physical harassment, detailing of which is not necessary herein. The wife filed criminal complaint against the husband and other family members for the offences under Sections 498 -A, 323, 506(2), 114 and for the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The relief prayed by the applicant -wife in her application included protection orders, claim for maintenance, amount of rent for residential accommodation, claim for monetary relief and payment of compensation, being the relief under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Act. The petitioner -husband filed reply and contested.
3.1 Learned Magistrate passed order below Exhibit 1A granting interim maintenance of Rs.06,000/ - per month. By order dated 15th December, 2012, learned Metropolitan Magistrate decided the application of respondent -wife finally, and passed orders granting protection against acts of domestic voilence under Section 18, issued residence orders and alternative direction for rent if the accommodation for the wife is not secured, directed payment of Rs.06,000/ - towards maintenance etc. from the date of application and awarded Rs.04,00,000/ - towards compensation.

3.2 Against the aforesaid order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal before the Court of Session, Ahmedabad, taking resort to Section 29 of the Act. The said Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2014 came to be partly allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court No.3, Ahmedabad. Learned Additional Sessions Judge interfered with the order to the extent of reducing the amount of compensation to Rs.02,00,000/ -, confirming the rest of the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It is this judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, brought under the writ jurisdiction of this Court to get it quashed and set aside.