- (1.) Tersely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, Harpreet Kaur (respondent-wife) filed a criminal complaint against her husband petitioner Balwinder Singh and his other relatives under Section 12 and 18 to 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). She has also moved an application for interim custody of her minor girl Rupinder Kaur, aged 3 years. The Magistrate accepted her prayer, vide impugned order dated 12.12.2011, which, in substance is as under:- "Accordingly, the request of the interim relief of the custody of the minor child Rupinder Kaur made by the petitioner is, hereby accepted. However, the respondent would be at liberty to meet the minor children Rupinder Kaur as per the terms & conditions to be imposed by this Court after hearing the parties. Now to come up on 20.12.2011 for appearance of the petitioner and respondent No.1 in person and for further directions regarding the terms & conditions of a handing over the custody of the child Rupinder Kaur to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 as well as regarding permissible visits of the respondent No.1 to the minor child Rupinder Kaur."
(2.) Instead of complying with the directions contained in the impugned order of Magistrate, the petitioner-husband filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Additional Sessions Judge, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 15.2.2012.
(3.) The petitioner-husband did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC.;