Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Interim Orders Under DV Act Are Appealable: ‘No Specific Bar on Appeals,’ Rules J&K High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court upholds enhanced interim compensation from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 31,000 per month, emphasizing legislative intent and children’s welfare.

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has upheld an appellate court’s decision to enhance interim monetary compensation in a domestic violence case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, affirmed the increase from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 31,000 per month and addressed the legal contention regarding the appealability of interim orders under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

The petitioner, Abdul Rouf Shah, challenged the order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, which had enhanced the interim monetary compensation payable to the respondents—his estranged wife Atiqa Hassan and their two children—from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 31,000 per month. The initial interim order issued by the Judicial Magistrate had set the compensation at Rs. 10,000 for the wife and Rs. 5,500 for each child, which was later reduced to Rs. 5,000 for each by the same magistrate. This reduction was contested by the respondents, leading to the enhancement by the appellate court.

While the primary legal discussion did not revolve around medical evidence, the judgment underscored the importance of a thorough and reasoned analysis in judicial orders, which indirectly pertains to the credibility of evidence presented.

Justice Dhar emphasized the necessity for detailed reasoning in judicial decisions. He noted that the initial reduction of compensation by the Trial Magistrate was “cryptic and lacking reasons,” which was rectified by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge through a meticulous analysis of the petitioner’s substantial salary and the educational needs of the children.

The judgment extensively discussed the scope of appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. It rejected the petitioner’s reliance on a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision, which argued that no appeal lies against interim orders. Instead, Justice Dhar endorsed the views of the Uttarakhand and Delhi High Courts, which support the appealability of interim orders under Section 29. “Section 29 neither bars filing of an appeal against an interim order nor does it specifically provide for an appeal against an interim order,” the court noted.

Justice Sanjay Dhar remarked, “If the Legislature intended to bar filing of an appeal against an interim order passed in the proceedings under DV Act, it could have specifically provided so in Section 29 of the Act. In the absence of any specific bar, an interim order cannot be kept outside the purview of Section 29.”

The High Court’s dismissal of Abdul Rouf Shah’s petition reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring adequate interim reliefs under the DV Act. By upholding the enhanced compensation and clarifying the appealability of interim orders, the judgment sets a crucial precedent for future domestic violence cases. It underscores the importance of reasoned judicial orders and reaffirms the legal framework protecting the rights of aggrieved parties under the DV Act.

 

Date of Decision: May 31, 2024

Abdul Rouf Shah vs. Atiqa Hassan & Others

Similar News