Bombay High Court
NAMRATA ZAKARIAversusRAJIV HIRANANDANI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S M MODAK
Holding
The order dropping the proceedings against the in‑laws was lawful and the revision lacked merit, so the revision was dismissed.
Summary
Namrata Zakaria filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband and two in‑laws. The magistrate had earlier dropped the proceedings against the in‑laws, reasoning that the couple were living separately. The dismissal was upheld by the Sessions Court, prompting the applicant to seek a criminal revision. The High Court examined whether the order dropping the case against the in‑laws was illegal or whether the revision was maintainable. Finding no illegality in the magistrate’s order and no merit in the revision, the Court dismissed the revision application. Consequently, the proceedings against the in‑laws remain dropped.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dropping proceedings against the in‑laws under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is legally valid
- Whether a criminal revision is maintainable against the order of the Sessions Court
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Domestic Violence
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- Criminal Revision
- Section 12
- Order Dismissal
Judgment
20. REVN 273 of 2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2017
Namrata Zakaria ...Applicant
Vs.
Rajiv Hiranandani and Ors. ...Respondents
*****
None for the Applicant
Mr. Shailesh S. Ghag APP for the Respondent-State
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 17th JANUARY 2026
P. C. :-
1. There was an application filed by the Applicant as per the
provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act against three Respondents. Respondent No. 1 is her
husband, whereas Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in-laws. The learned
Magistrate as per order dated 22nd April 2015 has dropped the
proceeding against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. This order was taken an exception by way of Criminal Appeal
Digitally
signed by
SEEMA
SEEMA KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
YELKAR Date:
2026.01.20
15:33:33
+0530 Seema 1/2
20. REVN 273 of 2017.doc
No. 605 of 2016 and Sessions Court as per order impugned order was
pleased to dismiss the appeal. That is why present revision at the
instance of daughter-in-law – Applicant. No one is present on her
behalf.
3. It is true on 17th August 2022, there was submission made on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to file Vakalatnama. Today, no one
is present. This revision application is pending since long.
4. I have gone through the impugned orders. The proceedings
against both of them are dropped, for the reason that wife and husband
have left the share household and started residing separately.
5. I find no illegality in the order. There is no merit in the revision.
Hence, Revision Application is dismissed.
(S. M. MODAK, J.)
Seema 2/2
Checking your session…