PRADEEP SINGH THAKUR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34480 of 2025

Pradeep Singh Thakur And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Swetashwa Agarwal, Yash Raj Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vineet Sankalp, G.A.

Court No. - 73
                      HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Arpit Khanna, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vineet Sankalp,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicant to quash the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the
Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. II, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Complaint
Case No.1879/2025 'Ananya Vs Sahil Thakur & Others', along with the
entire complaint proceedings under Section 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. Sri Agarwal, Sr. Advocate for applicants' counsel submitted
that present application/complaint has filed against the impugned order
dated 26.08.2025 passed by court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC-II,
Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 12 read with Sections 19, 20, 22 and
23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Opposite
party No.2 is daughter-in-law of applicants. Opposite party no.2 has
lodged complaint under Section 12 read with Sections 19, 20, 22 and 23
of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the
applicants and her husband-Sahil Thakur alleging therein that marriage
between opposite party no.2 and son of applicants was solemnized on
25.11.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Complainant after marriage,
living with her husband and staying in the shared household at the first
floor of the House No.602, Sector 21D, Faridabad, Haryana along with
                                                      NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                               2


her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law (unmarried) and Grand
mother-in-law, who were resided on the ground floor of the house.
Applicants and other members of family compelled and forced the
complainant to be taken away by her parents to her parental house and
was deserted and thrown out from her matrimonial house on 08.05.2025
and later on she was not permitted to return to her matrimonial house. The
shared household is an ancestral house of her husband, which was
mutated in the name of applicant. Complainant used to stay on first floor
of the house and rest of the family members used to stay on ground floor
and kitchen was common. Complainant lodged complaint stating therein
that she was not only physically assaulted but also was mentally tortured
by her in-laws as well as harassed for dowry. After six months of
marriage, instant complaint is being lodged. Complainant is currently
residing with her parents and is completely emotionally dependent upon
them. The complainant restrained by the applicants to re-enter in the
matrimonial house, as a result thereof, she is compelled to stay at her
parental house, as such, overburdened the parents of the complainant,
whereas husband is leading luxurious life who has an income of
Rs.4,50,000/- and is a Managing partner in Tablero Shutter (India) Pvt.
Ltd., Faridabad and has joint family business in Joy Forex Pvt. Ltd. at
Karol Bagh. The complaint was filed with prayer to pass protection order
U/s 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, prohibiting
acts of domestic violence against the complainant by the in-laws and
direct the applicants to reinstate the complainant on the first floor of the
shared household of House No.602, Sector 21D, Faridabad or in alternate
to provide an alternative residence to the complainant and to restrain
applicants from destroying all the personal belongnings and Stridhan of
the complainant, therefore, after lodging the complaint, learned Civil
Judge took cognizance and issued notice to applicants. Without DPO
report, learned Civil Judge passed interim order in favour of opposite
party no.2/complainant, on 26.08.2025, which is challenged herein. Vide
order dated 26.08.2025, learned Civil Judge has directed the applicants
and complainant's husband that they should not cause any act of domestic
violence with the complainant and let her reside in the matrimonial house
being in House No.602, Sector 21-D, First floor, Faridabad. Till the
interim application is decided after related arguments by both the parties.
                                                     NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                               3


4. Applicants' counsel further submitted that instant complaint has been
lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicants as applicants
are father-in-law and mother-in-law and applicants reside at their self
acquired property situated at House No.602, Sector 21-D, Faridabad since
last 30 years along with their mother-Smt. Pushpa Devi, aged about 84
years and two children, namely, Mannat Thakur (unmarried sister-in-law)
and Sahil Thakur (husband of complainant). Mother of applicant No.1,
namely, Pushpa Devi has been confined to bed pursuant to severe old age
ailment and she was recently diagnosed with Psychosis, a situation where
a person becomes mentally unstable. Applicant No.1 is a simple
businessman, who engaged in his business of foreign exchange from last
22 years and applicant No.2 is a house wife, who performs her household
duties. Applicant No.2 is a severe heart patient and had undergone
Angioplasty in the year 2023 and since then she is under observation and
undergoes dialysis on frequent occasion for cardiac disease. Opposite
party no.2/complainant, being highly educated and qualified lady having
remarkable academic excellence has been working for herself throughout
the course of time and it is apparent from complaint that she is employed
as Senior Manager in CBRE South Asia Pvt. Ltd. and getting salary
Rs.1,76,385/- approximately and getting renting allowance from the
company. Applicants have always supported the complainant and have
always decorously discharged their obligations. The applicants filed a
Civil Suit for injunction before the court of Civil Judge (JD), Faridabad
bearing Case No.2442 of 2025 for restraining their son and his
wife/opposite party No.2 from forcefully entering into their house and
causing interference in their peaceful life and possession thereof, wherein
notices were issued against the opposite party No.2 vide order dated
21.06.2025 passed by Civil Judge (JD), Faridabad. Pursuant to the
initiation of civil proceedings at the instance of the applicants, the
wife/opposite party No.2 came out with a present case levelling all sort of
false and frivolous allegation so as to harass the applicants and settle
scores on account of strained cordial relations among the parties. On
perusal of contents of complaint filed U/s 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act moved by opposite party no.2 reveals that
vague and frivolous allegation has been levelled against the applicants
and false and bogus story has been cooked up to harass the applicants and
                                                       NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                               4


her husband. Learned Civil Judge after receiving complaint from opposite
party No.2, without getting report from DPO, passed order on 26.08.2025
directing the police station to provide necessary protection to the
wife/opposite party No.2 and to reinstate her at the house of applicants.
The impugned order dated 26.08.2025, is illegal and has passed without
an proper reason and the same is abuse of process of law.

5. Counsel for applicants' further submitted that Section 23 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides that "Power to
grant interim and ex parte orders.—(1) In any proceeding before him
under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems
just and proper. (2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application
prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed
an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the
respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex
parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be
prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section18, section 19, section
20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent."

6. Applicants' counsel submits that in view of the provision provided U/s
23 of the Act, the order passed by learned Civil Judge is cryptic and non
speaking order and without recording any satisfaction. The present order
impugned is challenged herein. The house in dispute in which opposite
party no.2 was directed to be reinstated in the shared household by the
applicants, is of no concern with the husband of opposite party No.2. In
regard to property, applicant has already filed civil suit before the Civil
Court and notice has been issued against the defendant/respondent. In
support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed
by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs.
Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 414, the relevant para 30 is
quoted herein below:-

        "30. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the
        parties following questions arise for determination in this
        appeal:

        30.1 (1) Whether definition of shared household under
        Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
        Violence Act, 2005 has to be read to mean that shared
                                                          NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                                 5


       household can only be that household which is household of
       joint family or in which husband of the aggrieved person has
       a share?

       30.2 (2) Whether judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra and
       Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 has not correctly
       interpreted the provision of Section 2(s) of Protection of
       Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and does not lay
       down a correct law?

       30.3 (3) Whether the High Court has rightly come to the
       conclusion that suit filed by the appellant could not have
       been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC?

       30.4 (4) Whether, when the defendant in her written
       statement pleaded that suit property is her shared household
       and she has right to residence therein, the Trial Court could
       have decreed the suit of the plaintiff without deciding such
       claim of defendant which was permissible to be decided as
       per Section 26 of the Act, 2005?

       30.5 (5) Whether the plaintiff in the suit giving rise to this
       appeal can be said to be the respondent as per definition of
       Section 2(q) of Act, 2005 ?

       30.6 (6) What is the meaning and extent of the expression
       “save in accordance with the procedure established by law”
       as occurring in Section 17(2) of Act, 2005 ?

       30.7 (7) Whether the husband of aggrieved party (defendant)
       is necessary party in the suit filed by the plaintiff against the
       defendant?

       30.8 (8) What is the effect of orders passed under Section 19
       of the Act, 2005 whether interim or final passed in the
       proceedings initiated in a civil court of competent
       jurisdiction?"



7. He has further placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble
The Apex Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda and others Vs. Parimala,
in Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2020 on 22.01.2020, the relevant para 8 is
quoted herein below:-

       "8. Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act relates to
       protection order. In terms of Section 18 of the Act, intention
                                                       NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                                6


        of the legislature is to provide more protection to woman.
        Section 20 of the Act empowers the court to order for
        monetary relief to the “aggrieved party”. When acts of
        domestic violence is alleged, before issuing notice, the
        court has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been
        instances of domestic violence"

8. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA
have vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel
and submit that order challenged herein is interlocutory order and learned
Civil Judge has exercise power given U/s 23 of the Act by which learned
Civil Judge may pass an interim order as he deems just and proper. Clause
2 of Section 23 of the Act states that if Civil Judge is satisfied that an
application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has
committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the
respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex
parte order on the basis of the affidavit. Learned Civil Judge, after
considering complaint of opposite party no.2, has granted interim
protection and this interim order has been challenged by the applicants is
itself is not maintainable in the eyes of law.

9. Considered the argument raised by both the counsels, the record reveals
that opposite party No.2, who is daughter-in-law of the applicants,
married with applicants' son, on account of matrimonial discord, she
moved application U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shaurabh Kumar
Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC Online SC 1158 has discussed in
para 32, 33, 34 and 35, the same is quoted herein below:-

        "32. The second part of Section 482 saves the inherent
        power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the
        process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
        justice. Therefore, in a given case where a learned
        Magistrate is dealing with an application under Section
        12(1), the High Court can exercise the power under the
        second part of Section 482 to prevent abuse of the process
        of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Hence, the
        High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of
        the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under
        Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with
        Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005.
                                                 NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                        7


33. Now, the question is what is the scope of interference
under Section 482 with the proceedings under the DV Act,
2005. We must make a distinction between proceedings
initiated on the basis of an application under Section 12(1)
of the DV Act, 2005, which are predominantly of a civil
nature and the proceedings before the Criminal Court for
prosecuting a person for any offence. Setting criminal law
in motion has very serious consequences affecting the
liberty of a human being, as the person against whom
criminal law is set in motion can be arrested and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment.

34. We have already referred to the objects and reasons of
the DV Act, 2005, which are reproduced in the decision of
this Court in the case of Kunapareddy alias Nookal a
Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari. The basic
object of the DV Act, 2005, is to protect women from being
victims of domestic violence and also to prevent the
occurrence of domestic violence in society. It seeks to
protect the right of women to reside in their matrimonial
home or shared household. Therefore, there is a provision
for passing a Residence Order under Section 19. Section
18 provides for granting Protection Orders, which are
essentially to prevent the commission of acts of domestic
violence against women. The orders which can be passed
under Section 20 are with the object of compensating a
woman for loss caused due to domestic violence. The
custody orders regarding children are also essentially to
prevent domestic violence. Even Section 22 provides for
passing compensation orders for the injuries, including
mental torture and emotional distress, caused by acts of
domestic violence. If a complaint is entertained under
Section 12(1), the erring respondent cannot be punished as
is understood in criminal law. He can be subjected to
various orders as provided in Sections 18 to 23. A
respondent in the application can be prosecuted only if he
commits a breach of a protection order or an interim
protection order. Therefore, the consequences of
entertaining an application under Section 12(1) are not as
drastic as the consequences of setting criminal law in
motion. No doubt, orders that can be passed under the DV
Act, 2005, can also be very drastic, but in proceedings
under Section 12(1), a respondent cannot be sentenced to
suffer imprisonment or a fine as in a criminal trial.

35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482
of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1),
                                                         NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                                8


       the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV
       Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give
       justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence
       and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore,
       while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
       CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the
       High Court should be very slow and circumspect.
       Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of
       gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law.
       Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off
       approach while dealing with proceedings under Section
       482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1).
       Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of
       jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing
       with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV
       Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005,
       will be defeated."

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs.
Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 414, has observed in
paragraphs 33, 34 and 35, the same is quoted herein below:-

       "33. The domestic violence in this country is rampant and
       several women encounter violence in some form or the
       other or almost every day, however, it is the least
       reported form of cruel behavior. A woman resigns her
       fate to the never ending cycle of enduring violence and
       discrimination as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, a
       partner or a single woman in her lifetime. This non-
       retaliation by women coupled with the absence of laws
       addressing women’s issues, ignorance of the existing laws
       enacted for women and societal attitude makes the women
       vulnerable. The reason why most cases of domestic
       violence are never reported is due to the social stigma of
       the society and the attitude of the women themselves,
       where women are expected to be subservient, not just to
       their male counterparts but also to the male’s relatives.

       34. Till the year 2005, the remedies available to a victim
       of domestic violence were limited. The women either had
       to go to the civil court for a decree of divorce or initiate
       prosecution in the criminal court for the offence
       punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. In both the
       proceedings, no emergency relief/reliefs is/are available
       to the victim. Also, the relationships outside the marriage
       were not recognized. This set of circumstances ensured
                                                           NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                                  9


        that a majority of women preferred to suffer in silence,
        not out of choice but of compulsion.

        35. The enactment of Act, 2005 is a milestone for
        protection of women in this country. The Statement of
        Objects and Reasons of the Protection of Women from
        Domestic Violence Bill, 2005 marks the objective which
        was sought to be achieved by the enactment. It is useful to
        reproduce the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which
        are in the following words:-

        “4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to provide for the following-

        (i) It covers those women who are or have been in a
        relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived
        together in a shared household and are related by
        consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the
        nature of marriage or adoption. In addition, relationships
        with family members living together as a joint family are
        also included. Even those women who are sisters, widows,
        mothers, single women, or living with the abuser are
        entitled to legal protection under the proposed
        legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables the wife or
        the female living in a relationship in the nature of
        marriage to file a complaint under the proposed
        enactment against any relative of the husband or the male
        partner, it does not enable any female relative of the
        husband or the male partner to file a complaint against
        the wife or the female partner.

        (iii) It provides for the rights of women to secure housing.
        It also provides for the right of a woman to reside in her
        matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not
        she has any title or rights in such home or household.
        This right is secured by a residence order, which is
        passed by the Magistrate."

11. From the record, it is apparent that opposite party No.2 was thrown
out of the house bearing House No.602, Sector 21D, Faridabad, Haryana
and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal
has held in para 35 that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court
should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only
when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of
law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while
                                                                                          NA528 No. 34480 of 2025
                                                                   10


                                    dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application
                                    under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise
                                    of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer
                                    for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of
                                    enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated. Moreover, the order
                                    challenged herein is interlocutory order and parties have to produced the
                                    evidence to learned Civil Judge and learned Civil Judge has to appreciate
                                    the evidence produced by the parties. The Act provides power to
                                    Magistrate to pass interim order. The order challenged here, passed by
                                    learned Magistrate, discloses that the same has been passed after
                                    appreciating facts and material evidence available on record and due
                                    application of mind.

                                    12. In view of the Apex Court judgment and the order challenged herein,
                                    does not disclose any material illegality to be interfered. Accordingly, the
                                    present 528 BNSS application is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid
                                    observation.



                                                                                      (Justice Deepak Verma)
                                    February 24, 2026
                                    Nitin Verma




Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad