Gram Nyayalaya orders under the Domestic Violence Act are appealable to the Court of Session.

The revisionist challenged an ex parte order dated 19 May 2026 of the Judicial Officer, Gram Nyayalaya, Tehsil Chauri Chaura, Gorakhpur, in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The order granted the aggrieved person protection and residence relief, monthly maintenance of ₹4,000 from the date of the application, and lump-sum compensation of ₹25,000.

The revision was filed 12 days out of time; the High Court found sufficient cause and condoned the delay.

The revisionist then sought to have the ex parte order set aside, but the State submitted that an appeal lay to the Court of Session.

1. Whether a criminal revision in the High Court was the proper remedy against the Gram Nyayalaya’s ex parte order granting relief under the Domestic Violence Act, or whether the revisionist was required to appeal to the Court of Session.

Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides an appeal to the Court of Session against an order made by a Magistrate, within 30 days of service of the order.

Section 33(3) of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 provides an appeal to the Court of Session from other judgments, sentences, or orders of a Gram Nyayalaya, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2).

In Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and another, (2016) 11 ADJ 29, a Larger Bench held that an appeal under Section 29 lies to the Court of Session and that the ordinary CrPC remedies may be available against the Sessions Court’s appellate order.

The impugned order was made by a Gram Nyayalaya in a Domestic Violence Act proceeding.

The Court held that the statutory appeal provisions supplied the appropriate remedy: Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act provides for an appeal against the Magistrate’s order, while Section 33(3) of the Gram Nyayalayas Act provides an appeal against a Gram Nyayalaya order to the Court of Session.

Accordingly, the revisionist could not obtain the requested relief through the revision and was left to pursue the statutory remedy before the appropriate forum.

It left open the revisionist’s right to pursue the statutory remedy before the appropriate forum.