In a significant ruling, the single judge bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the Magistrate has power to revoke the proceedings initiated against a person in terms of Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if and when the Magistrate finds that there is no ground to proceed against such person. The Court furthermore emphasized that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act are not, in the strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, a bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Respondent, who happens to be the daughter of the Petitioner filed the Petitioner under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The learned magistrate granted interim maintenance in favour of the respondent to the tune of Rs.5000/-per month, but the said order was stayed in revision petition filed by the petitioner before learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. The Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the application filed by the Respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the respondent having failed to obtain maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C has resorted to the impugned proceedings, which is abuse of process of law.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that “So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution and, therefore, a Magistrate, after obtaining response from the other side, is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order passed by him, if upon going through the response of other side, he finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or no case for grant of interim order is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.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.”
The Court furthermore relied upon the judgment titled Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan. The Court noted that in the present case, the Petitioner may file an application before the learned Magistrate for dropping of the proceedings against him and for revocation of the order granting interim monetary compensation to the respondent.
Hence, the Court directed the magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within one month from the date such application is filed by the petitioners.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court disposed of the Petition.
Case Title: Peerzada Muneer Ahmad V. Aaliya Anjum
Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Case No.: CRM(M) No.383 of 2025
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. T.A.Lone and Sabiya Lone
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : twitter.com
