- (1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. IX, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2015 (Nishant Krishan Yadav and others Vs. Smt. Varuni Yadav) under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the appeal of the revisionist was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 23 of the Act by which the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month by 10th day of English calendar with the further direction to allow her (Opposite party no. 2) to live peacefully in a room at 3rd floor of premises no. A-353, Derawal Nagar, Delhi and not to destroy or damage her "stridhan".
(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that revision is maintainable before this Court. At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist referring to the contents of the written arguments submitted in the matter after passing of the order dated 20.11.2015 argued that there is clear provision under Section 28 of the Act regarding applicability of the provision of Cr. P.C. Thus the revision filed by the revisionist is maintainable under Section 397/401 Cr. P.C. It was further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalu Ojha Vs. Prashant Ojha, 2015 2 SCC 99 had not considered the scope of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act. It was next contended that the observation recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Shalu Ojha case was casual in nature. No any issue was involved or considered in the matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding maintainability of the criminal revision against the order passed by the Sessions Judge in the proceedings of the Act. Learned counsel for the revisionist also placed argument on the merit of the orders passed by the court below referring to the certain paras of the written argument submitted by the revisionist.
(3.) Learned A.G.A. argued that in the case of Shalu Ojha order passed by the concerned High Court was challenged by way of Special Leave to Appeal. The Apex Court referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre but unfortunately mediation failed and the matter again reached before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The order passed by the High Court was set aside observing that there is no any provision for filing further appeal or revision against the order passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 29 of the Act and directed the concerned Sessions Judge to hear the appeal afresh. Thus it cannot be said that the observation recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable in the present matter and is casual in nature.;