IN THE COURT OF LEARNED ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE AT RANAGHAT, NADIA

Ref :- Cr. Appeal No. /2025
In the matter of

Lovely Biswas
W/o – Subhranta Biswas
D/o – Bikash Biswas
Resident of Betna
P.O. – Betna, P.S. – Hanskhali
District – Nadia, W.B.

…Appellant/Aggrieved Party
VERSUS

1. Subhranta Biswas
S/o – Sudhir Kumar Biswas
Resident of Majhdia, Sathitala para
P.O. – Majhdia, P.S. – Krishnaganj,
Dist. – Nadia, W.B.

2. The State of West Bengal

…Respondents

AND
In the matter of an application for appeal U/S 29 of The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the order passed by Smt. Sayantani De Tarafder,
Ld. J.M. 2nd Court at Ranaghat, Nadia on 02.08.2025 in vide Misc. Case No. 351/2011
regarding the Residence Order prayed on behalf of the Aggrieved Party

AND
The humble Appeal
on behalf of the above named Appellant/ Aggrieved Party
Most Respectfully Sheweth :

1. That the appellant/Aggrieved Party filled an application under section

12 of P.W.D.V. act against your respondent no. 1 and prayed getting a
residence order and other necessary reliefs for herself and her minor
child.

2. It is undisputed fact that AP and respondent are married and after

marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived in respondent house
in the address mentioned in case title and continue their conjugal life
there. Out of the wedlock a male child was born and at present his age
about 16 years. It is alleged in the petition that the time of marriage
the parents of the petitioner gave cash amount of rupees 50,000/-,
gold ornaments and other valuable articles as per the demands of the
respondent as stridhan articles and the AP was taken to her
matrimonial home along with all shridhan articles.

3. It is alleged in the petition that the AP was subjected to mental and

physical cruelty on various demands of the respondent and later she
was being neglected and deserted by respondent. It is alleged in the
petition that on 20/8/11 the AP was forced to leave her matrimonial
home and since then she is residing at her parent’s house with her
minor son. It is alleged by AP in her petition that the respondent has
made physical and mental torture upon the AP and not providing
sufficient food and regular maintenance for the AP, consequently she
filed a case under section 498(A) IPC before krishnaganj P.S and filed
this instant case against respondent.

4. In order to prove the case of the AP, AP examined herself as an witness

as PW1 and produced additional one witness i.e. the father of the AP
has been examined as pw2. In order to adducing evidence the
documents related to residential house of the respondent, one porcha
has been exhibited by the petitioner and it mark as exhibit-1. In order
to prove the disputed facts of the case the petitioner counsel
successfully elicited truth from the mouth of the respondent i.e. OPW-
1 in cross examination, by having acceptance of the fact that prior to
filling of the case, the
 respondent had not sent any maintenance amount to his wife at her
paternal place. And a case under section 498A IPC has been registered
by the police against the respondent. That the primary burden as on
the aggrieved/petitioner to establish that there was domestic violence.
The term domestic violence has been defined under section 3 of
protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005, which includes
harms or injuries that may be mental or physical. The allegation of
cruelty for demand for further dowry were levelled against the
respondent by PW 1 and pw2 from their evidence. Standard of proof in
domestic violence decided on the basis of Preponderance of
probabilities which discharge onus of the petitioner and shift to the
respondent. The respondent then has the responsibility to either
refute the AP's evidence or present his own evidence to support his
defence. But in this instant case the respondent counsel does not
refute the AP's evidence or the respondent never produce any oral or
documentary evidence to support his defence. That the prima facie
materials available from the witness as PW 1 and PW 2 and the DIR to
show that the aggrieved party was harassed and treated cruelty as
physical, verbal, emotional and economical as defined under section 3
of PWDV act. That the AP prima facie prove from her evidence that the
respondent has refused and neglect to maintain her and her son. And a
domestic violence was happened through physical, mental, verbal,
emotional and economical torture. That no adverse inference could be
drawn from the respondent examination-in-chief that the petitioner is
a qurrelsome lady and he did not assault the petitioner on demand of
dowry or that the petitioner wanted to stay with the respondent in her
paternal house as ‘Ghar Jamai’.

5. It is also proved that she reside in the matrimonial house i.e. the
respondent house as a member of shared household and continue
there domestic relationship. As per section 17 or of PWDV act
conferred the right of a woman to reside in shared household who is
lived in domestic relationship. That the aggrieved / petitioner and was
in a domestic relationship as a wife when application was filed before
the LD. court in PWDV act. The expression domestic relationship has
been expansive manner to mean a relationship between two person
who live or have at any point of time live together in a shared
household when they are related by marriage.
6. The apex court in case Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi on 12 may, 2022
states that in para 46 as per sub section (1) of section 17 of the act
protects the right of a women to live in shared household even when
the domestic relationship may have been severed for instant when a
woman has been widowed, owing to death of her husband, entitles
her to have a remedies under D.V. act. Even when the marital ties
cease and there is no subsisting domestic relationship between the
aggrieved women and the respondent against whom relief is claimed
but the act of domestic violence related to the period of domestic
relationship, even in such circumstances, the aggrieved women who
was subjected to domestic violence has remedies under DV act. And in
para 37 of the judgement the protect the right of every woman in a
domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside a shared
household irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial
interest in the same and the said right could be enforced by any
women under the said provision as an independent right in addition to
the orders that could be passed under section 19 of PWDV act.

7. That being aggreived and dissatisfied and prejudiced by the said

judgement passed by the Ld. JM 2nd court at Ranaghat, Nadia on
02.08.2025 your petitioner begs to file this application for appeal
before your Honor will graciously be pleased to admit it, notify the
state call for record the said case and after persuing the same and
hearing the parties will also be pleased to partly set aside the
impugned judgement and order passed by thecLd. JM 2nd Court at
Ranaghat, Nadia on 02.08.2025 and may also be pleased to pass such
other order or orders as your honour be deemed fitvand proper on the
following amongst other grounds.

GROUNDS

1. FOR THAT the learned magistrate erred in law and fact in

adjudicating the said petition for Residence order.

2. FOR THAT the learned magistrate was swayed only by emotions and
not by the facts, for which he came to erroneous finding of law and
facts, for which that that impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. FOR THAT the learned magistrate should have considered that the
balance of convenience and inconvenience of the both parties and
not to presume bias in favour of a particular party, which is the
 fundamental principle of justice, for which the learned magistrate
came to erroneous finding of law and facts, for which that
impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. FOR THAT the order of the learned magistrate suffers from

conjectures and surmises and the learned magistrate has failed to
uphold her statutory and judicious obligation, which has resulted in
great miscarriage of justice, and for which that impugned order is
liable to be set aside.

5. FOR THAT the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is

otherwise bad in law and should be partly set aside.

That your appellant craves leaves to refer and to submit any other ground/s
which may arose at the time of hearing.

That your Honour has the jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and this appeal is
well within the period of limitation.

Under the circumstances your Honour may

most graciously be pleased to admit the appeal, and
call for the case record, and issue notice upon the
respondents, and after hearing the appeal, partly set
aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2025.

And/ or pass such further order/s as your Honour may

deem fit & proper for the interest of justice.

Dt.