Veena Devi And Another vs Dimple Manhas

Sanjay Dhar, J

In the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as the DV Act), which is stated to be pending before the Court of Special Electricity Magistrate, Jammu.

As per the case of the petitioners, the marriage of respondent was solemnized with one Ajay Singh Chib, who happens to be the brother of the petitioners. It has been submitted that after a couple of months of the marriage, the respondent started demanding separate accommodation and harassed the old parents of the petitioners. It has been further submitted that petitioner No. 1 is married at Hamirpur, whereas petitioner No. 2 is married at Pallanwala, Jammu. According to the petitioners they tried to resolve the dispute between the respondent and her husband but did not succeed. It has also been submitted that the application filed by the respondent against them is an abuse of the process of law as there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. It has been further submitted that the allegations made in the impugned application are absolutely false and frivolous and that the petitioners have been unnecessarily implicated in the case. It has been contended that the petitioners are living separately from the family of their brother, as such, they do not have any domestic relationship with the respondent.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record of the case.

The petitioners, it seems, are aggrieved of the impugned application filed by the respondent against them on the grounds that they are living separately and that no specific allegations have been made against them. So far as proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be acquated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, the trial Magistrate after obtaining response from the husband and his relatives etc. would be well within in his jurisdiction to revoke his order of summoning the petitioners or he can even drop the proceedings. The Magistrate would also be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order of monetary compensation if he, upon going through the response of the husband and his relatives, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or that no case for grant of interim monetary compensation is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV 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.

In my aforesaid view, I am supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 446. The Supreme Court in the said case has observed that scope of notice under Section 12 of the DV Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the statute, so that after considering rival submissions, appropriate order can be issued. The Court further held that the matter stands on a different footing and the dictum in Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors, (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not get attracted at a stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act.

In the instant case, learned Magistrate has issued notice to the petitioners on the basis of impugned application lodged by the respondent. In view of the foregoing legal position, it would be open for the petitioners herein to file their response to the main petition and even file an application for dropping of the proceedings. Once that is done, the learned Magistrate would be duty bound to consider all the submissions that may be made by the petitioners in their reply or in their application for dropping of the proceedings. The grounds urged in the instant petition can also be raised by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. If on consideration of the same, the learned Magistrate finds that no case for proceeding against the petitioners is made out, he would be at liberty to recall his order of summoning and to drop the proceedings against the petitioners.

In the aforesaid backdrop and without going into the merits of contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is provided that the petitioners may file their reply to the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act raising all the available pleas and they may also file an application for dropping of the proceedings against them. In case the same is done by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate shall, after hearing the parties, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date such an application is made by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate.