Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

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