- (1.) MR. A. Rab, learned counsel appear ing for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has pointed out and submitted that Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (2005 Act, for short) is a complete bar to the maintainability of this petition under Sec tion 482 Cr. P. C. Section 29 reads thus: "29. Appeal.- There shall lie an ap peal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later. "
(2.) MR. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sub mits that Section 29 is not attracted in this case because what comes within the purview and ambit of Section 29 is a fi nal order passed by the Magistrates un der the 2005 Act. According to MR. Sharad Sharma, since the impugned or der is an ex-parte order granting interim maintenance to the respondents 1 to 3 in terms of and, under Section 23 (2) of the 2005 Act, Section 29 is not attracted and, therefore, the appeal does not lie against the impugned order granting ex parte interim maintenance. According to MR. Sharma, if a Magistrate has granted ex parte interim maintenance under Sec tion 23 (2) of the Act, the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. I totally and absolutely disagree with the aforesaid contention of Mr. Sharma. The word 'order' used in Sec tion 29 connotes all types of orders passed by the Magistrates under the 2005 Act including orders granting in terim maintenance under Sub Section (1) of Section 23 as well as ex-parte interim maintenance granted under Sub-Section (2) of Section 23. Since the word 'order' has not been qualified by any suffix or prefix in Section 29, the clear legislative intent is that each and every type of order, irrespective of its descrip tion and nature, passed by a Magistrate has been made appealable to the court of Session Judge under Section 29. The remedy of filing an appeal under Sec tion 29, therefore, being an alternative and equally efficacious remedy, this pe tition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was not at all maintainable. It was not open to the petitioner to have bypassed the appeal forum by straightway approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that on the ground of avail ability of an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 29 (supra), this petition is not maintainable in this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
(3.) HAVING said so, I myself feel and the learned counsel appearing for the parties, Mr. Sharad Sharma as well as Mr. A. Rab agree with me that sending the petitioner back to the appellate fo rum may be a cumbersome and time taking process and because the peti tioner, rightly or wrongly, has now come to this Court, this Court should actually send the parties back to the Magistrate with directions to the Magistrate for de ciding the interim relief application. They accordingly submit that the following agreed order be passed. Impugned order is set aside. The parties, namely, the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 through their learned counsri are directed to appear before the learned Session Judge, Dehradun on 18th August, 2008. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall file his reply to the interim maintenance application before 12th August, 2008 with advance copy to the learned counsel opposite who may, if he so elects, file rejoinder thereto before 18th August, 2008.;