Shabir Ahamd Bhat And Others vs Roufa Javeed

The petitioners have challenged the petition filed by the respondent against them under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter ‘the D.V.Act’)

As per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner No.4 and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2018 and after the marriage, the respondent resided in the matrimonial home for a period less than four months, whereafter she voluntarily left the matrimonial home and remained away from the company of the petitioners. It has been alleged that matrimonial relationship between petitioner No.4 and the respondent remained strained owing to the conduct of the respondent.

It has been further submitted that a number of efforts were made to restore the relationship between the parties and these efforts ultimately culminated in an amicable settlement which was recorded in the year 2021. According to the petitioners the terms of the settlement were accepted by the parties including the respondent and in spite of settlement between the parties, the respondent filed the impugned petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act and she also filed another petition under Section 144 of BNSS before the Courts below.

It has been contended that the respondent by filing the impugned petition has misused the process of law, inasmuch as, there are no specific allegations leveled against the petitioners. It has been further contended that the respondent has impleaded not only petitioner No.4 but also his relations as party to the impugned petition, which amounts to misuse of process of law. It has been contended that the learned Forest Magistrate has vide order dated 25.10.2025 dismissed the application of the respondent for grant of interim relief in terms of Section 23 of the D.V.Act and while doing so, the learned Magistrate has recorded a prima facie opinion that the pleadings filed by the respondent do not disclose commission of domestic violence against the respondent.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioners while impugning the petition filed by the respondents is that the allegations made in the impugned petition are vague and besides this learned trial Magistrate has already recorded a prima facie opinion that the allegations made in the petition do not disclose commission of any domestic violence, as such impugned petition deserves to be quashed.

So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution and, therefore, a Magistrate, after obtaining response from the husband and his relatives etc., is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order passed by him if upon going through the response of the husband and his relatives, he finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or no case for grant of interim order is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings. I am supported in taking the aforesaid view by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC Online SC 446.

In view of the aforesaid discussion of the law on the subject, it is clear that the Magistrate has power to revoke the proceedings initiated against a person in terms of Section 12 of the D.V.Act, if and when the Magistrate finds that there is no ground to proceed against such person. Therefore, in the instant case it will be open to the petitioners to make an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against them and to revoke the order relating to award of interim monetary compensation in favour of respondents.

In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion and without going into merits of the contentions raised, it is provided that the petitioners may file an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against them and for revocation of order granting interim monetary compensation to the respondent. In case the same is done, the learned Magistrate shall, after hearing both the parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within one month from the date such application is filed by the petitioners. It is further provided that in case application for dropping of the proceedings is filed by the petitioners before the learned trial Magistrate within ten days from today, the learned trial Magistrate shall not proceed any further against the petitioners till the decision of the said application.

This petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE