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

Premature Challenge Lacks Merit: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Petition Against Domestic Violence Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court clarifies that notice under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is procedural and not an interim order for monetary compensation.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dismissed a petition challenging the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner argued that the respondent, already receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and from his salary, should not receive further monetary compensation. Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that the petition was premature and lacked merit, allowing the petitioner to address his concerns before the trial Magistrate.

The petitioner, Mudasir Ahmad Dar, had challenged the proceedings initiated by the respondents, Mst. Mashooka and another, under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. After their marriage ended in divorce on April 8, 2023, the respondent managed to secure Rs. 5000 per month from the petitioner’s salary as maintenance. Additionally, interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 7,000 per month was awarded to the respondent and their child, respectively, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Despite this, the respondent filed a petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act seeking further interim monetary compensation.

Procedural Nature of Notice: Justice Dhar emphasized that the notice issued by the trial Magistrate under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was procedural, meant to call for a response from the petitioner, and not an order for interim monetary compensation. “No interim order for monetary compensation has been passed in favour of respondent No.1 against the petitioner in these proceedings,” Justice Dhar clarified.

Premature Nature of the Petition: The court noted that the petitioner had already filed a reply to the notice but had prematurely approached the High Court instead of waiting for the trial Magistrate’s decision. “The petitioner should have waited for the order of the learned Magistrate after filing of objections under section 12 of the D.V. Act, but instead of doing so, he has prematurely filed the instant petition,” the judgment stated.

Limitation Argument Rejected: Addressing the petitioner’s argument regarding the limitation period, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan. The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act need not be filed within one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence. The court thus found the petitioner’s contention “without any substance.”

Justice Dhar cited the Supreme Court’s clarification that the notice under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is to ensure a procedural response, facilitating an appropriate order post consideration of rival submissions. “The legal position, that a criminal court cannot review its own order, would not get attracted at a stage when the notice is issued under Section 12 of the Act,” the judgment reiterated.

“The petitioner should have waited for the order of the learned Magistrate after filing of objections under section 12 of the D.V. Act,” Justice Dhar noted, highlighting the premature nature of the petition.

The dismissal of Mudasir Ahmad Dar’s petition underscores the procedural nature of notices under the D.V. Act and reinforces the necessity of awaiting trial court decisions before escalating matters prematurely. The ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedents, ensuring that applications under the D.V. Act are not constrained by a rigid limitation period. This judgment clarifies the procedural steps in domestic violence cases, potentially influencing future cases with similar procedural challenges.

 

Date of Decision: 20th May 2024

Mudasir Ahmad Dar v. Mst. Mashooka and Another

Similar News