Patna High Court
Yashpal BhartiversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The order dated 08‑04‑2024 directing the petitioners to provide temporary residence and maintenance to the complainant is set aside.
Summary
The petitioners Yashpal Bharti and his family sought to quash an order dated 08‑04‑2024 passed by the Additional District Judge‑III, Gaya, which directed them to provide temporary residence and a monthly allowance of Rs 10,000 to Nish Raj, the complainant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners argued that the original complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act was against the husband Shrey Bharti, not them, and that they had no legal obligation to furnish accommodation, especially after a prior decree disentitling Shrey Bharti from any claim over their property. The High Court examined whether the appellate court had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing the accommodation directive without hearing the petitioners and found that the direction was misconceived and contrary to the original order, which only restrained the petitioners from committing violence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the 08‑04‑2024 order and allowed the petition, granting the relief sought. The decision underscores that maintenance and household facilities are the duty of the husband under the DV Act and that courts cannot impose such obligations on third‑party relatives without proper jurisdiction.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court could, without hearing the petitioners, direct them to provide temporary residence and maintenance to the complainant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
- Whether the petitioners, as father‑in‑law and brother‑in‑laws, are liable to furnish accommodation and maintenance under Sections 12 and 18 of the DV Act.
- Whether the original order limited the duty of maintenance to the husband Shrey Bharti, thereby precluding any obligation on the petitioners.
- Whether the appellate court’s direction amounts to an overreach of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 190(1)(a)
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354, 498A, 504
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12, 18
Subjects
- Domestic Violence
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- Maintenance
- Temporary Residence
- Quash Order
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- Criminal Appeal
- Property Rights
- Natural Justice
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61030 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1075 Year-2020 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
1. Yashpal Bharti Son of Late Bihari Lal Bharti R/O House No. 8/1494/9B,
Chilka Road Samrat Vikram Colony, Opp. Durga Mandir, Saharanpur, P.S.
Mandi, Dist. Saharanpur (U.P).
2. Rohit Bharti Son of Yashpal Bharti R/O House No. 8/1494/9B, Chilka Road
Samrat Vikram Colony, Opp. Durga Mandir, Saharanpur, P.S. Mandi, Dist.
Saharanpur (U.P).
3. Shivanki Bharti D/O Yashpal Bharti R/O House No. 8/1494/9B, Chilka
Road Samrat Vikram Colony, Opp. Durga Mandir, Saharanpur, P.S. Mandi,
Dist. Saharanpur (U.P).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nish Raj @ Nesh Raj Bharti Wife of Shreya Bharti R/O House no. 1494/ 9
B, Samrat Vikram Colony, In front of Durga mandir, Chilkana Road, P.S.-
Mandi Kotwali, Dist.- Saharanpur, U.P. at present Residing at Gaya with her
Parent (Daughter of shree Rajesh Kumar, Advocate), Near Bageshwari
Goomti in the Campus of St. Joseph, P.S.- Delha, Dist.- Gaya, Bihar, Pin -
823002.
3. The S.H.O Of Mandi Kotwali, P.S.- Saharanpur, Dist.- Saharanpur U.P. Uttar
Pradesh.
4. The Protection Officer of Mahila Helpline, Saharanpur, U.P. Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shubh Raj, Advocate
Mr. Karu Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present application has been filed for
following relief(s):
‘That this present Quashing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
2/10
application is being filed on behalf of the
petitioners before this Hon'ble High court for
setting aside/quash the judgment/order dated
8.4.2024 passed in connection with Cr. Appeal No.
30/2023 which was heard along with Cr. Appeal
No. 4 of 2023 (arising out of order dated
21.12.2022) passed in complaint case No.1075 of
2020 by the court of Md. Afzal Khan, J.M. 1st
Class, Gaya, in proceedings under the prevention
of women from domestic violence Act 2005)
whereby and whereunder the Cr. Appeal No. 3 of
2023 filed by the petitioners was also dismissed
along with Cr. Appeal No.4/2024. Mechanically
with an option to provide a temporary residence
accommodation to the aggrieved person matching
to their status in society till further event as a
temporary measure. The provision of alternative
residential accommodation might be valued at Rs.
10,000/-per month upward.’
3. The facts giving rise to the present application
is that a complaint petition was preferred by the opposite
party/complainant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity, D.V. Act) before
the learned C.J.M., Gaya, which was registered as Complaint
Case No. 1075 of 2020. In the said complaint it was alleged,
inter alia, that prior to marriage the opposite party/complainant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
3/10
had developed relationship with Shrey Bharti at Sikkim on the
pretext of marriage, leading to registration of Malviya Nagar
P.S. (Delhi) Case No. 1829/2015, which was subsequently
compromised upon assurance of marriage. It was further alleged
that thereafter a rented accommodation was provided at
Saharanpur and that Mahila P.S. Case No. 40 of 2020 under
Sections 498a, 354, 323, 504 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the
D.P. Act was instituted. Alleging acts of cruelty, non-payment of
rent and denial of entry into the shared household on
31.08.2020, the opposite party/complainant claimed to have
returned to her maika at Gaya on 30.10.2020 and sought various
reliefs under the D.V. Act. The learned C.J.M., Gaya, vide order
dated 08.01.2021, took cognizance under section 190(1)(a) of
the Cr.P.C. and transferred the case for enquiry and further
proceedings, which has given rise to the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed an ex parte order
dated 21.11.2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1075
of 2020 arising out of an application of opposite
party/complainant preferred under section Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
whereby the complaint petition under section 12 of the D.V. Act
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
4/10
was allowed with a direction to Shrey Bharti to keep the O.P.
No.2 in the matrimonial house with household facilities and
further it was also directed to maintain the O.P No.
2/complainant in a dignified manner and give her Rs. 10,000 per
month to meet her expenses. A further direction was issued
against the petitioners not to commit any kind of domestic
violence against the O.P. No.2/complainant under Section 18 of
the D.V. Act. The petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgment and order dated 21.12.2022 preferred an
appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2023, however, the
learned Additional District Judge-III, Gaya vide order dated
08.04.2024, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners
with an observation that the petitioner Yashpal Bharti and his
family may provide a temporary residence accommodation
matching to their status in society till further event as a
temporary measure. It has also been directed that alternative
residential accommodation was to be valued at Rs. 10,000 per
month or upward.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the O.P. No. 2 and Shrey Bharti married with their own sweet
will and were not even residing with the petitioners. It has been
contended that the petitioner no. 1 Yashpal Bharti has dis-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
5/10
entitled Shrey Bharti, the husband of the O.P. No.2/complainant,
from the claim, right, title opertating to his property and for this,
an Original Case being 386 of 2019, new number 361 of 2021
was filed prior to the institution of the instant complaint
preferred by the O.P. No.2 and by order dated 23.12.2021, the
petitioner Yashpal Bharti got a decree from the court of
competent jurisdiction at Saharanpur (U.P) to disentitle Shrey
Bharti, husband of the O.P. No.2 from claiming any property. He
further submits that the appellate court miserably failed to
appreciate the fact that the O.P. No.2/complainant was not
sharing any domestic relationship with the petitioners after her
marriage with Shrey Bharti. It has been submitted that the house
in question as mentioned in Schedule-I of the complaint was not
a joint family property, which the husband of O.P. No.
2/complainant, namely, Shrey Bharti would lay his claim over
the right, title or possession thereof. It has been asserted that the
said house cannot be said to be a shared household as the said
house is the self-acquired property of the petitioner no.1 and
moreover, petitioner no. 1 has disentitled Shrey Bharti from any
claim of his right or claim over his property. It has been
submitted that the learned court below has not held that the
complainant was residing in the house as mentioned in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
6/10
Schedule-I of the complaint and has mechanically passed the
order and so has the learned appellate court failed to appreciate
the said fact.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the opposite party no. 1/complainant and Shrey Bharti were
separate in mess and business with the petitioners and they were
not sharing any domestic relationship with them. It has been
submitted that the petitioner no. 1 Yashpal Bharti is an old
person and is suffering from various ailments. It has lastly been
submitted that the petitioners have no concern with the O.P.
No.2 and her husband Shrey Bharti and therefore, the order
passed against the husband Shrey Bharti for providing her any
accommodation to the O.P. no.1 and for further maintenance,
can be passed only against the husband of the O.P. No.2 and not
against the petitioners.
7. It has thus been submitted that the order passed
by the appellate court directing the petitioners to provide a
temporary residence to the aggrieved person as matching to
their status and society is bad in law and it is opposed to the
orders passed in the Original Case No. being 386 of 2019.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
O.P. No.2 has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
7/10
petitioners and has submitted that the O.P. No.2 is legally
wedded wife of Shrey Bharti and the petitioners being the
immediate relatives of Shrey Bharti are obliged to comply with
the orders and provide accommodation as directed. It has been
submitted that the decree which is being claimed by the
petitioners to have been passed in Original Case No. 386 of
2019 is also by way of planning and their defence to torture the
O.P. No.2, in connivance with Shrey Bharti. It has been
submitted that O.P. No.2 has no source of income and her
parents are also incapable to maintain her and thus, she wants to
reside at Saharanpur with her husband. It has thus been
submitted that the present application is misconceived and the
same may be dismissed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the
respective parties and after perusal of their respective pleadings,
it is evident that the petitioners appear to be the father-in-law
and brother-in-laws of the O.P. No.2. From perusal of the
original orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate’s court,
it would be evident that the same was disposed of with a
direction which is as under:
‘After perusal of report of Protection
Officer of Mahila Helpline Saharanpur, Uttar
Pradesh and petition of the complainant and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
8/10
submission of learned counsel this complaint
petition under section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby
allowed.
The respondent Shrey Bharti is
directed to keep the applicant Nish Raj @ Nish Raj
Bharti in his matrimonial home with respect and
dignity and make separate arrangement in the
matrimonial home with household facilities for her.
Further he is also directed to maintain the
applicant in dignified manner and also give Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) per month to meet with
the expenses towards her and including other
necessities of her. And other respondents are
directed not to commit any kind of violence against
the applicant as mentioned under section 18 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005.’
10. From perusal of the order dated 08.04.2024
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2023, it is evident that the
petitioners had challenged the said order passed by the learned
DB Court contending that the impugned order has been passed
without giving them any opportunity of hearing and they came
to know about the said order only when the O.P. No.2 tried to
forcibly enter the house with the help of local police. This court
finds that the only order passed against the petitioners was that
they should not commit any type of violence against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
9/10
complainant mentioned under Section 18 of the D.V. Act. The
learned Appellate Court has gone ahead and has directed the
petitioner and his family to provide a temporary
residence/accommodation to the O.P. No.2 matching to their
status in society. Such observation seems to be misconceived
especially for the fact that the original court had not directed for
any such accommodation to be given by the petitioners and
moreover, the petitioners were never heard prior to passing of
such order. Taking into account the fact that the petitioners live
separately with the husband of the complainant and moreover,
the husband of the complainant has been ousted from claiming
her right over the property of petitioner no.1, passing of such an
order would amount to overreaching the order passed by the
competent court of law which has been brought on record by
way of Annexure 2. It is also a settled law that the direction with
respect to giving maintenance and providing household facility
is the duty of the husband, who had performed marriage on his
own and therefore forcing the petitioners to provide
accommodation in their house wherein even the son of
petitioner no.1 does not have any right was bad in law.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated
08.04.2024 passed in connection with Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2023
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61030 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
10/10
is set aside.
12. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.02.2026.
Transmission Date 18.02.2026.
Checking your session…