Delhi District Court
Sana Jamil vs Abdul Majeed on 14 October, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET PAHWA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 129/2025
CNR No. DLNE01-002408-2025
Sana Jamil
W/o Sh. Abdul Majeed
(D/o. Late Sh. Jamil Ahmad)
R/o C-112/17,
Yamuna Vihar Road,
North Ghonda, Delhi-110053
(Also at: H. No. B-24/2,
Street No. 2, Near Kali Mandir,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094)
.......... Appellant
Versus
1. Abdul Majeed (HUSBAND)
S/o Late Sh. Abdul Latif
CR/o Anas Shabbier,
S-8, 3rd Floor, Abdul Hameed Road,
Jogabai Extn., Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi-110025
2. Smt. Nafisa Bano (Mother-in-law)
W/o Late Sh. Abdul Latif
3. Abdul Hameed (Dewar)
S/o Late Sh. Abdul Latif
4. Afsha (Nanad)
D/o Late Sh. Abdul Latif
All R/o. G-16, 3rd Floor (Backside),
Abul Fazal Enclave Part-I,
Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025
Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:49
+0530
2
.........Respondents
Date of Institution of Appeal : 20.08.2025
Date of Completion of Arguments : 22.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 14.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal u/s. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is directed against the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the court of Ms. Neha Barupal, Learned JMFC (Mahila Court-01), North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CT Case No. 905/2021 U/s. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred to as the DV Act).
2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the appellant are that the marriage of the complainant/appellant herein was solemnized on 09.01.2019 with respondent no.1 namely Abdul Majeed according to Muslim rites and ceremonies and at the time of marriage, parents of the complainant spent huge amount of Rs.20 lakhs and gave all the household items, jewellery, cash, i10 car, etc. Out of the said wedlock, one female child was born, who is under the care and custody of the complainant. Respondent no. 1 used to visit Delhi at his home from Ahmedabad, where, he was doing a job.
Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:50
+0530
3
3. It is further alleged that after one month of the marriage, mother-in-law of the complainant (respondent no.2 herein) started taunting the complainant for bringing less dowry in the marriage and tortured her mentally and physically. Sister-in-law of the complainant (respondent no. 4 herein) used to instigate her mother against the complainant and they started abusing and beating the complainant. Finding no way, the complainant made a complaint to her husband, he also scolded the complainant.
4. It is further alleged that while the complainant was pregnant, she was not provided with proper food and medication and prior to the delivery, the complainant was sent to her parental home, where on 28.09.2019, she gave birth to a female child and thereafter, she remained at her parental home for about three months. When the complainant went to her matrimonial home, the respondents taunted and harassed the complainant for giving birth to a female child. All the respondents used to put pressure upon the complainant to fulfill their illegal demand of car and flat and on raising objection by the complainant, respondent no. 1 threatened her to pronounce divorce.
5. It is further alleged that on 01.01.2021, brothers of the complainant came to the matrimonial home of the complainant and tried to make understand the respondents, Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:46
+0530
4
but, they did not mend their behavior, rather abused and misbehaved with the complainant and her brothers and finding no alternative, the brothers of the complainant made call at 100 number. Police reached at the spot and the matter was compromised and also alleged that on 23.02.2021, the respondent no. 1 took the complainant to Ahmedabad, where, complainant was harassed and mentally tortured and she was also given beatings by respondent no. 1. There, complainant was not allowed to talk with her family members, even on mobile phone.
6. It is further alleged that on 08.06.2021, the respondent no.1 sent the complainant to Delhi alongwith newly born baby on false pretext that he has been transferred to Pune and he would call her at Pune, after making arrangement of accommodation, but, respondent no.1 did not contact with the complainant and since then, the complainant has been living at her parental home. Even the mother and sister of the respondent no. 1 also did not try to know about the well being of the complainant or her minor daughter. It is also alleged that brothers of the complainant tried to make understand the respondents in order to save the matrimonial life of the complainant, but the respondents were adamant on their illegal and unlawful demand of dowry and flatly refused to keep the complainant and her daughter in their house.
Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:49
+0530
5
7. It is further alleged that finding no feasible alternate, the complainant lodged a written complaint against all the respondents u/s. 12 of D.V. Act before the Ld. Trial Court. Alongwith the petition u/s. 12 of the DV Act, applications for interim relief seeking residence order and stay order were also filed. Vide detailed order dated 19.07.2025, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the interim application for residence and stay order.
8. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.07.2025, the complainant (appellant herein) filed the present appeal.
9. The notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents and on completion of service of notice, Ld. Counsel had appeared on behalf of the respondents.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel for the respondents and perused the record of the Ld. Trial Court.
11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.07.2025, passed by Ld. Trial Court, whereby the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application filed on behalf of the appellant without granting any interim relief regarding residence and stay to the appellant.
12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court had miserably failed to appreciate the Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:48
+0530
6
correct timeline involved in the DV Petition, prior to disposing of the interim application in a right and just manner and submitted that the Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that vide order dated 18.10.2024, the Hon'ble Trial Court recorded the statement of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to the limited extent of requesting to withdraw the "early hearing of the residence/stay application". However, the said request has been incorrectly construed as a withdrawal of the interim application under Section 23 read with 19 of DV Act and also submitted that the petitioner never intended to withdraw the interim application for residence order and no express statement to such effect was made on record. The application was pending and actively pursued thereafter.
13. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the residence order under Section 19 read with Section 23 of the DV Act is interim in nature and meant to ensure immediate protection of the aggrieved woman pending trial and also submitted that the Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate the gist of the judgment of "Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi", wherein the apex court held "that every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in the shared household".
Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:47
+0530
7
14. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate the observations about rival contentions and overlooked the summary nature of interim reliefs, which do not require full evidence at the stage of consideration and that the complainant is residing in a rented accommodation with her girl child which is quite unsafe and all her stridhan and belonging are still in her shared household/matrimonial home, wherein she is in the constructive possession and same is not denied by the respondent, hence the impugned order is contrary to the spirit and object of the DV Act, which aims to protect the aggrieved woman from further domestic violence, including dispossession and exclusion from the shared household and also submitted that the impugned order under appeal is against the settled principles of law, against the facts and also an error apparent on the face of record, as, the same is based on surmises and conjectures. As such on the facts and circumstances mentioned herein, the impugned order under appeal is liable to be set aside and prayed that the same may be set aside.
15. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 19.07.2025, after considering all the facts and circumstances in a very judicious manner and there is no Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:47
+0530
8
illegality and infirmity in the said impugned order and also submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant is false, frivolous and baseless and prayed for dismissing the present appeal filed by the appellant.
16. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ld. Counsels for the respondents.
17. Perusal of the record shows that the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the impugned order dated 19.07.2025, vide which, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application filed on behalf of the appellant herein seeking stay and residence order.
18. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is reproduced herein below:-
"Before moving on, it is pertinent to note that on 18.10.2024, at request and vide separately recorded statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioner, the application of petitioner seeking stay and residence orders was dismissed as withdrawn and the matter was fixed for order on interim maintenance application for 09.12.2024. Thereafter, on 09.12.2024, time was sought by ld. Counsel for respondents to file reply to the application under section 19 read with section 23 DV Act and application for interim maintenance was not pressed upon as maintenance was granted by ld. Family Court.
Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:49
+0530
9
Thus, the application seeking residence orders is in fact already disposed of (dismissed as withdrawn).
Even on merits, the aforesaid application cannot be decided at this stage owing to rival contentions regarding the matrimonial house of the petitioner and whether the petitioner left the matrimonial house on her own or was she was ousted therefrom. These issues can only be decided during trial after evidence of the parties has been led. Moreover, respondent no. 1 has already been directed to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner may lead appropriate evidence to establish her claim during trial.
Hence, the application seeking stay and residence order is dismissed."
19. It is now well settled that the PWDV Act is a civil law remedy available in a criminal court. The proceedings are predominantly civil in nature, because the reliefs provided under Sec. 18 to 23 (protection order, residence order, monetary relief, custody, compensation, etc.) are all civil remedies. However, the provisions of the Act are enforced through the criminal courts and breach of a protection order is made a criminal offence u/s. 31 of the Act.
20. Bare perusal of the Ld. Trial Court record shows that the appellant had filed a petition u/s. 12 of the PWDV Act against the respondents. Alongwith the said petition, an application u/s. 23 of the Act was also filed seeking interim maintenance and direction to the respondents to Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:51
+0530
10
permit the appellant to live in her matrimonial home /shared household bearing No. G-16, 3 rd floor, Backside Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-I, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025. Another application u/s. 19 r/w. 23(2) of the DV Act was filed on behalf of the appellant herein seeking Ex-Parte stay order thereby restraining the respondents from alienating or disposing of the shared household.
21. Perusal of the ordersheets of the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court shows that on 05.01.2024, the matter was adjourned for 15.04.2024, however, in the meantime, on 27.02.2024, an application for early hearing seeking stay and residence orders was filed. The said application was put up on 04.03.2024. On 04.03.2024, it was adjourned for 23.03.2024 and on 23.03.2024, it was put up for date already fixed, in the main case, i.e. 15.04.2024. Now, since the said application was filed for seeking early hearing and it was kept for date already fixed in the main case on 15.04.2024, it automatically became infructuous, as no purpose would have been served, if that was allowed on 15.04.2024. Therefore, this court is convinced from the argument raised by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that he intended to withdraw the said application for early hearing only and he never intended to withdraw the application seeking residence and stay orders. Even otherwise, bare Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:50
+0530
11
perusal of the record shows that the endorsement regarding withdrawal is on the application seeking early hearing and not on the application seeking residence and stay order. Thus, the applications for interim relief seeking stay and residence orders were never withdrawn by the appellant and the statement regarding withdrawal of the application for early hearing was misconstrued by Ld. Trial Court, as withdrawal of the application for stay and residence orders.
22. Now, coming to the impugned order dated 19.07.2025. In the considered opinion of this court, even the impugned order is somewhat self contradictory. In the first part of the impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court observed that the application seeking residence orders was in fact already disposed of (dismissed as withdrawn), whereas, in the second part of the order, the Ld. Trial Court observed that even on merits, the said application cannot be decided without evidence and consequently dismissed the application.
23. Now, once the Ld. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the application was already disposed of as withdrawn (though it was factually incorrect as already observed above), there was no occasion for the Ld. Trial Court to dismiss the application on merits by observing that it could be decided only after evidence. Moreover, the Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:48
+0530
12
application seeking stay cannot wait till the evidence of both the parties is recorded. Admittedly, either the stay was to be granted or denied, but such an interim relief cannot be kept pending till the trial comes to an end.
24. Therefore, in view of the above, this court is satisfied that this is a fit case to allow the present appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court with direction to the Ld. JMFC to proceed further as per law and decide both the applications i.e. one, seeking residence orders and second, seeking stay orders, on merits after hearing both the parties, afresh.
25. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Ld. JMFC on the date already fixed before the Ld. JMFC on 25.10.2025.
26. The record of the Ld. Trial court is ordered to be returned with the attested copy of this judgment.
27. Appeal file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 14th day of October, 2025.
(PUNEET PAHWA) Special Judge (NDPS)Addl. Sessions Judge/ North East District/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 129/2025 Sana Jamil Vs. Abdul Majeed & Ors.
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.10.14
14:22:51
+0530