CRL.M.C./5697/2026 of VIRENDER KATHURIA & ANR. Vs RINKI & ORS. on 6 August 2026

O R D E R

%

06.08.2026

1. Petitioners have assailed order dated 18.07.2026 of the learned appellate court, whereby the present respondent no. 1 was allowed re-entry into the matrimonial home.

2. Broadly speaking, marriage between respondent no. 3/husband and respondent no. 1 took place on 20.04.2014 and they were blessed with one boy child. On 15.08.2021, respondent no. 3/husband and respondent no. 1 separated and the latter shifted to her parental home, after which on

04.12.2021 she filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In those proceedings, the learned trial magistrate allowed stay from dispossession but since by then respondents no. 1 & 2 had already shifted to then parental home of respondent no. 1, in the appeal filed by the present petitioners, the matter was remanded to the learned trial magistrate. On 16.10.2024, learned trial magistrate allowed restoration of possession and that order was assailed by the petitioners before the Court of Sessions. The learned Court of Sessions, by way of order impugned in the present proceedings allowed re-entry to the present respondents no. 1 in the matrimonial home and at the same time also granted liberty to the present petitioners to offer a reasonable alternate accommodation. The re-entry as allowed by the learned Court of Sessions was to be by 01.08.2026. The present petitioners filed an application for extension of time for re-entry and the same was extended till 08.08.2026. At the same time, respondent no. 3/husband also filed an application offering alternate accommodations, but that application is now listed on 10.09.2026.

3. Learned counsel for respondents accepts notice.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners presses for interim stay on operation of the impugned order, which request is strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2. As mentioned above, the impugned order directed re-entry of the respondent no. 1 into the matrimonial home and in the alternative, granted liberty to the petitioners to offer her a reasonable alternate accommodation. Basically, by filing applications for extension of time to comply and for offering alternate accommodation, petitioners have accepted the impugned order. Another aspect is that the application for alternate accommodation is pending before the trial court. Granting stay on operation of the impugned order would mean that this Court is satisfied about prima facie strength of this revision and consequently, that would lead to pre-judging the application already pending before the magistrate. Further, the bona fide of the petitioners also has to be examined in view of the situation that they have impleaded the husband and brother-in-law of respondent no. 1 as co-respondents and not as co-petitioners to convey an impression that they are adversary to the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find it a fit case to stay operation of the impugned order.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners, on instructions of his clients, seek permission to withdraw this petition, so that petitioners may approach the learned trial court for expeditious hearing of the pending application as regards the alternate accommodation.

6. As requested, the petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn.

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J AUGUST 6, 2026/as