The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, has ruled that an aggrieved party challenging an order passed by a Gram Nyayalaya under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before the Court of Session rather than approaching the High Court directly through a criminal revision. Holding that statutory appellate remedies exist under both the Domestic Violence Act and the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, the High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband against an ex-parte protection and maintenance order, granting him liberty to seek relief before the competent appellate forum.
Background of the Case
The matter arose out of proceedings initiated by the wife, Annu Gupta, against her husband, Nilesh Gupta, and others under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Complaint No. 448 of 2023) at Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur.
On May 19, 2026, the Judicial Officer (Nyayadhikari), Gram Nyayalaya, Tehsil Chauri Chaura, Gorakhpur, passed an ex-parte final order granting multiple reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Act. Through the order, the opposite parties were prohibited from committing or abetting any acts of domestic violence against the applicant. Nilesh Gupta was directed to provide alternative accommodation of the same standard as enjoyed in the shared household and prohibited from interfering with her right of residence. He was further directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000 from the date of the application on the fifteenth of each month, along with a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 25,000 for mental, emotional, and physical distress caused by domestic violence. The local station house officer was directed to ensure protection and assistance in executing the order.
Aggrieved by this ex-parte decision, Nilesh Gupta filed a criminal revision before the Allahabad High Court alongside an application seeking condonation of a 12-day delay in filing the petition. The Court found the grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit sufficient and condoned the delay.
Arguments Before the Court
Learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vivekanand Yadav, submitted that the revision was preferred to set aside the ex-parte judgment and order dated May 19, 2026, stay its operation, and remand the matter back to the Gram Nyayalaya, Tehsil Chauri Chaura, for fresh consideration, arguing that the revisionist would otherwise suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury.
Opposing the revision, Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) appearing for the State, submitted that the revision petition was not maintainable. He contended that Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act explicitly provides for an appeal to the Court of Session against any order passed by a Magistrate under the Act. Furthermore, Sri Pankaj Kumar pointed out that under Section 33(3) of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, an appeal lies from any other judgment, sentence, or order of a Gram Nyayalaya to the Court of Session.
Court’s Analysis and Precedent
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Section 33 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.
Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act provides: “29. Appeal. There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.”
Similarly, Section 33(3) of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 dictates that, subject to exclusions concerning plea bargaining convictions and petty fines, “an appeal shall lie from any other judgment, sentence or order of a Gram Nyayalaya to the Court of Session.”
To substantiate the procedural route, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri referred to the three-judge Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another, (2016) 11 ADJ 29. In that judgment, the larger Bench had observed:
“23. Under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. ‘the High Curt or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court…’. That the Court of Sessions is as an inferior Court to the High Court, cannot be disputed. thus, the Court of Sessions before which an appeal has been prescribed under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is a Criminal Court inferior to the High Court and, therefore, a revision against its order passed under Section 29 will lie to the High Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C. is supplementary to Section 397 Cr.P.C.”
The Full Bench had further clarified: “23.2 In view of the above, as the remedy of an appeal had been provided under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 before a Court of Sessions, which means a Court of Sessions referred under Section 6 read with Sections 7 and 9 of the Cr.P.C., without saying anything more as regards the procedure to be followed in such appeal, and there being nothing to the contrary in the Act of 2005 which may be indicative of exclusion of the application of the provisions of Cr.P.C. to such an appeal, the normal remedies available against the judgment and order passed by a Court of Sessions by way of appeals and revisions prescribed under the Cr.P.C. before the High Court, are available against an order passed in appeal under Section 29 of the Act, 2005.”
Decision of the Court
Applying the statutory provisions and the established precedent, the High Court observed:
“In view of above facts and circumstances, the statutory remedy available to the revisionist is to file an appeal against the impugned ex parte order dated 19.05.2026 under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as Section 33 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.”
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision while granting liberty to the revisionist to avail the statutory remedy in accordance with the law before the appropriate forum.
Case Title: Nilesh Gupta Versus State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Case No.: Criminal Revision Defective No. 1825 of 2026
Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Date: September 28, 2026
