Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 28 (JK)

Raman Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Kumar v. Neelam Kumari W/o Shri Raman Kumar

2024-01-31

SANJAY DHAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : SANJAY DHAR, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the application filed by respondent against them under Section 12 of the J&K, 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 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Addl. Munsiff, Samba). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 09.09.2022, whereby the learned Magistrate has issued notice to the petitioners and petitioner No. 1 has been directed to pay interim monetary compensation of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent/complainant. 2. As per case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 20.10.2021 and within a short period of time, the respondent acted with cruelty against her husband and his family members, i.e. the petitioners herein. It has been alleged that the behavior of the respondent against the petitioners remained rude, impolite and coercive. It has been further contended that the respondent started making false allegations against the petitioners and misbehaved with them. It has been also averred that the respondent left the company of petitioner No. 1 and her matrimonial home without informing petitioner No. 1 and his other family members. It is averred that on 04.05.2022 at the time when the respondent left her matrimonial home, she took away alongwith her all the gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 4.00 lacs. It has been submitted that petitioner No. 1, in view of adulterous life of the respondent and her bad attitude towards the petitioner No 1 and his family members including his mother, filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage before the Court of learned Principal Family Court, Jammu and as a counterblast to the same, the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against petitioner No. 1 for restitution of conjugal rights and she also filed the impugned complaint against the petitioners levelling false allegations against them. 3. It has been submitted that the respondent by filing the impugned application has abused the process of the Court and the learned Trial Magistrate, without verifying the facts mentioned in the impugned complaint, has passed the impugned order dated 09.09.2022, whereby petitioner No. 1 has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as interim monetary compensation to the respondent. 4. 8,000/- per month as interim monetary compensation to the respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. As already noted that the petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act against them as also order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the said application, whereby interim monetary compensation has been awarded by the trial Magistrate in favour the respondent. So far as proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in case of Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Others vs. Mst. Sana and Another in CRM (M) No. 386/2021, decided on 02.09.2022. In the said case, this Court has, while relying upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatch vs. Lakshmi Naryanan, 2022, SCC Online SC 446, observed as under: “(10) The petitioners, in effect, are aggrieved of the impugned petition filed by respondent No. 1 against them and the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the said petition. So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, the trial Magistrate, after obtaining the 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 learned Magistrate would 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.” 6. 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.” 6. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that a Magistrate if, after receiving the version of the husband or his relatives in a proceeding under Section 12 of the DV Act, comes to a conclusion that no case for proceeding against them is made out, he can drop the proceedings and he can even re-call or modify his order of interim monetary compensation granted in favour of the aggrieved person. 7. In the instant case, it is not clear whether the petitioners have filed any reply to the impugned application before the learned trial Magistrate. If they have not done so, they are at liberty to file such reply raising all the pleas in it. The petitioners are also at liberty to file an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against them. 8. So far as impugned order dated 09.09.2022 is concerned, the same has been passed ex-parte and is subject to the objections from other side. Once the petitioners file objections to the main petition, they can always seek variation of the said order from the learned trial Magistrate. It is well within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to vary the aforesaid order or even to annul the same. It is also open for the learned trial Magistrate to drop the proceedings against the petitioners or any of them, if he finds that the petitioners have been unnecessarily roped in. 9. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file their reply to the application under Section 12 of DV Act raising all the available pleas before the learned trial Magistrate. They shall also be at liberty to file an application for dropping of the proceedings against them and 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 reply/application is filed by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate.