In a decision of considerable import for the enforcement of protective legislation, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified that women seeking urgent relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), cannot be denied interim support merely for want of a Domestic Incident Report (DIR). Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, affirmed that Magistrates possess the authority to grant ex parte or interim relief even when a DIR is not on record, strengthening access to remedies for victims facing immediate harm. The ruling came while upholding orders passed by both the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge in favour of the aggrieved wife.
The petitioner, a police constable, had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging maintenance orders passed by the subordinate courts directing him to pay ₹12,000 per month to his estranged wife as interim monetary relief.
At the heart of the dispute was whether the absence of a DIR could invalidate interim relief granted under the DV Act. The petitioner contended that without a DIR or any police complaint, no relief could be lawfully granted. The High Court decisively rejected this argument, observing, “Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider Domestic Incident Report before passing any order under D.V. Act. Even in absence of DIR a Magistrate is empowered to pass ex parte or interim relief as well as final order under D.V. Act.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Probha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, the High Court emphasized that the object of the DV Act is protective and remedial, and cannot be thwarted by procedural formalities in urgent situations.
The respondent (wife) had filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, accompanied by an application seeking interim maintenance and protection. The application detailed allegations of continuous abuse, physical, emotional, and economic, by her husband and in-laws. Photographs and affidavits were submitted in support of her claims. The Trial Court, acknowledging the need for interim relief pending adjudication, directed the petitioner to pay ₹12,000 per month.
The petitioner assailed the order on several grounds, contending that the income attributed to him for the purpose of determining maintenance had been grossly exaggerated. He further argued that the allegations of domestic abuse were vague, lacking specific dates or concrete instances, and that in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) or any formal police complaint, the proceedings stood vitiated. Additionally, he submitted that the courts below failed to consider his financial obligations, including his responsibility towards his elderly parents and ongoing loan repayments.
The Trial Court, upon evaluating pay slips submitted by the petitioner himself, recorded that while he claimed a net income of ₹23,000, government-issued salary documents revealed a net salary of ₹39,782 per month. It observed, “Even if the respondent has many other responsibilities but those responsibilities cannot be projected to throttle away the responsibilities of his wife.”
While rejecting the claim that loan repayments should reduce the maintenance amount, the Court held that, “The liquidation of the loan obtained by the respondent no. 1 cannot come in the way of granting reasonable maintenance to the aggrieved person… this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow such deduction from the income shown by the respondent no. 1.”
The Appellate Court affirmed this view, referencing Rajnesh v. Neha, where the Supreme Court directed that a husband’s standard of living and capacity to provide must be carefully balanced against the wife’s needs. The Appellate Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the wife had voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home, noting that the apprehensions raised by her were grounded in past conduct and threats.
The High Court found that both subordinate courts had thoroughly examined the pleadings, income affidavits, and documentary evidence before granting interim relief. The High Court declined to interfere with their conclusions, while observing that “Both Trial Court and Appellate Court have discussed in detail all aspects of the matter concerning interim relief/maintenance under and in terms of provisions of D.V. Act, which do not call for any interference, and therefore, instant petition is liable to be dismissed.”
The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.
Case Title: Naveed Bashir Wani Vs. Varqa Bashir and others
Case No.: CM(M) no. 117/2025
Coram: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Muzaffar A. Bhat
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Lone Altaf
Picture Source : twitter.com