Allahabad High Court
Chitra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186828
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2836 of 2024
Chitra Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Archna Singh Jadaun
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Despite the fact that the present criminal revision has been filed by Mrs. Archana Singh Jadaun, Advocate and was also appearing on behalf of the revisionist, today the revisionist states that she will argue her case herself.
2. Heard Ms. Chitra Singh, the revisionist in person, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 29th March, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2023 (Renu Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Another) arising out of Complaint Case No. 3212 of 2023 (Chitra Singh Vs. Renu Chaudhary & Others), under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred as the "D.V. Act"), Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Mathura.
4. By the impugned order dated 29th March, 2024, the appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by opposite party no.2, has set aside the order of the trial court dated 19th July, 2023 on the ground that the application/complaint under the provisions of D.V. Act is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of District Court, Mathura. Order dated 19th July, 2023 was passed by the trial court on the application filed by the opposite party no.2 being Application No. 10B in the complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, by the revisionist, on the ground that the complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable before the District Court, Mathura. The trial court by the order dated 19th July, 2023 has rejected the said application of opposite party no.2.
5. From the records, it transpires that earlier the revisionist had filed a complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act before the District Court, Aligarh in the year 2017 and the same has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 11th July, 2022 against which the revisionist filed an appeal before the appellate court at Aligarh, which was allowed and the opposite party no.2 and others including the husband of the revisionist, who is not party before this Court have been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the revisionist as monthly rent and Rs. 2,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance. Thereafter the revisionist again filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 3212 of 2023 (Chitra Singh Vs. Renu Chaudhary & Others), under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Mathura before the District Court, Mathura on 16th January, 2019 as another domestic violence has been committed upon her, in which application no. 10B has been filed by opposite party no.2 which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 19th July, 2023 rejecting the said application, against which, Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2023 (Renu Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Another) was filed by opposite party no.2 and the same has been allowed by the impugned order.
6. Challenging the impugned order, the revisionist in person submits that the application no. 10B filed by opposite party no.2 before the trial court at Mathura filed under the provision of Code of Civil Procedure contains absolutely no reason, therefore, the same does not legs to stand. Revisionist further submits that without considering the objection of the revisionist, the appellate court has passed the impugned order, which is per se illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. Revisionist next submits that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in the facts of the present case. The revisionist lastly submits that the impugned order contains absolutely no legal ground.
7. On the above premise, the revisionist submits that the appellate court has committed gross error in allowing the appeal filed by opposite party no.2, therefore, the impugned order cannot be legally sustained is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other-hand learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate court allowing the appeal filed by opposite party no.2, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
9. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the appellate court has rightly passed the impugned order, while allowing the appeal filed by opposite party no.2, after recording categorical finding of facts on the ground that the application or complaint filed by the revisionist under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable at District Court, Matura, on account of fact that for the same domestic violence being committed upon the revisionist, she had already filed a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. He also submits that if any further domestic violence is committed upon the revisionist, she will, at best, be at liberty to make an appropriate application in her first complaint case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act at District Court, Aligarh. This second complaint case is not maintainable.
10. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the appellate court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order, the present criminal revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record including the impugned order passed by the appellate court, this Court finds that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with Kuldeep Singh on 19th April, 2007 and after some time of their marriage the relationship between the two became strained and incompatible. Resultantly the revisionist has filed Complaint Case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act before the District Court, Aligarh as domestic violence has been committed upon her by her husband and in-laws and the same had been rejected by the trial court at Aligarh vide order dated 11th July, 2022 against which the revisionist filed an appeal before the appellate court at Aligarh which was allowed vide order dated 9th December, 2022. During the pendency of the first complaint case under Section 12 of D.V. Act at District Court, Aligarh, for another domestic violence being committed upon her, the revisionist has filed Complaint Case No. 3212 of 2023 (Chitra Singh Vs. Renu Chaudhary & Others), under Section 12 of the D.V. Act before the District Court, Mathura in which order dated 19th July, 2023 has been passed by the trial court, Mathura rejecting the application being Application No. 10B filed by opposite party no.2. Not being satisfied, opposite party no.2 has filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2023 (Renu Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Another) arising out of Complaint Case No. 3212 of 2023 (Chitra Singh Vs. Renu Chaudhary & Others) and the same has been allowed under the impugned order.
12. This Court may sorry to record that in the affidavit filed in support of the present criminal revisionist, for the reasons best known to the revisionist, not even a single line has been stated about the filing of complaint case under Section 12 and the appeal filed by the revisionist before the District Court, Aligarh. From the application filed by opposite party no.2 being Application 10-B in the complaint case under Section 12 at District Court, Mathura, it is clear that four cases had been instituted by the revisionist against her husband and in-laws under the various proceedings and two cases have also been filed by her husband against her.
13. The appellate court while passing the impugned judgment has recorded that the complaint case under Section 12 D.V. Act was filed by the revisionist in District Court, Matura while the complaint case under Section 12 D.V. Act pending in the District Court, Aligarh. The trial court has further recorded that if a complaint case under D.V. Act is pending in a court, and during that complaint case both parties reach an agreement, and in accordance with the agreement, they start to move together, and on the next day, they quarrel or domestic violence reoccurs, then that fact should be reported in the pending case itself, rather than filing a new complaint case because domestic violence is not an act that occurs on a specific date, but is a continuous act. In connection with the same, the appellate court has further recorded that if a woman is subjected to domestic violence during the pendency of a case before a court in any area to which D.V. Act extends, the remedy available to her is to seek interim protection in the pending case and if the domestic violence is continued after the case has been decided and protection has been granted, then criminal proceedings should be initiated against those committing domestic violence by filing a complaint under Section 31 of the D.V. Act, but it is not legally appropriate to file a new case for every domestic violence.
14. On the basis of such finding, the appellate court has opined that the complaint case filed in the year 2017 was decided by the District Court in 2022, and therefore, the further domestic violence as alleged in the year 2019 should have been pressed in the pending complaint case. Furthermore, after the allegation of domestic violence was made in the District Court, Mathura, the appellate Court of District, Aligarh already granted protection against domestic violence in the year 2022, and also determined monthly rent and maintenance in favour of the revisionist. This does not mean that this protection against domestic violence is solely protection against the domestic violence that occurred in Aligarh in 2017, but rather, it is protection provided to ensure that no domestic violence is committed against a woman wherever she lives, at any time, under any circumstances.
15. On the basis of above deliberation, the appellate court has held that the complaint case filed at District Court, Mathura appears to be an abuse of the judicial process, therefore, order of the trial court at District Court, Mathura has been set aside.
16. After deeper scrutiny, this Court is in full agreement with the order passed by the appellate Court. The appellate court has recorded categorical finding of fact and has also recorded its cogent reasons in allowing the appeal filed by the opposite party no.2.
17. There is no doubt that every wife like the revisionist has been given the right under the D.V. Act that if she faces any domestic violence on the part of her husband or her in-laws, she can apply for her protection and the concerned court can provide her protection by following the due procedure known to law. However, such woman has not been given the right under any law specifically D.V. Act that whenever domestic violence happens to her at anywhere, she can file a case of domestic violence at different places again and again. Filing of such domestic violence cases time an again and everywhere would be an abuse of the judicial process.
18. In the opinion of the Court, the proper remedy available to the revisionist was to approach the District Court, Aligarh again if any fresh domestic violence happens to her by making an appropriate application as she may be advised. This Court may also record that it is admitted case that when the revisionist filed complaint case at District Court, Mathura, the complaint case filed at District Court, Aligarh was pending. The revisionist appears to be busy bee.
19. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned passed by the court below as well as by the appellate court.
20. The present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
October 17, 2025
Sushil/-
