Noting that in Domestic Violence Cases, it is not for Protection Officer to undertake any mediation/conciliation once a Magistrate is seized of the case, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court framed general guidelines in regard to role of 'Protection Officer'.

The single-judge bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani was adjudicating upon a petition wherein the petitioner-wife was inter-alia seeking direction to Protection Officer to ensure that she is allowed to reside in her matrimonial home as per the earlier court order.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner in her petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 had previously been awarded maintainence along with her son. The petitioner had been also allowed to reside in the shared household without any interference pursuant to another direction passed by the concerned court to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein being the husband and the brother-in-law of the petitioner respectively to refrain from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner.

The said directions had been addressed to respondent No. 3-the Designated Protection Officer.

Later, in order to defeat and frustrate the direction passed by the Court the husband-respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit impleading the petitioner herein with her two brothers as defendants therein in connivance with his father in respect of the residential house/(shared household) and succeeded in obtaining an ex-parte order of status-quo qua the possession of the said house.

The said order of status-quo got modified by the petitioner herein after filing response to the suit as well as the application for interim relief the giving right of residence to the petitioner herein in the said shared household.

After the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 failed in their attempts to defeat the order, the petitioner sought implementation of the said order by filing application under Section 151 CrPC. The concerned Court accordingly directed the respondent No. 3-the Protection Officer to ensure the compliance of order. The respondent No. 3, however, instead of carrying out the directions passed by the Court, alleged to have made an attempt to hold a parallel Court in order to decide as to whether the petitioner is to be allowed to reside in the shared household or not.

High Court's Observation

The Court was of the view that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have disregarded the order passed by the Court and have deliberately and intentionally undertaken a contemptuous conduct undermining the rule of law and authority of the Court making every attempt to frustrate and avoid the implementation of the order of the trial court, thus, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court through the medium of the instant petition.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, whereunder the petitioner herein had been compelled to seek enforcement and implementation of the orders passed by the Court below through the intervention of this Court on account of casual and lackadaisical approach of the nominated Protection Officer in carrying out the directions, the Court deemed it appropriate to lay down certain guidelines in the matter in respect of the Protection Officer/s.

The Court commented that the Domestic Violence Act had been enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of woman from being victims of an act of domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of the domestic violence in the society.

"The Act, inter-alia, provides for rights of the women to secure housing, the right of women to reside in a matrimonial house or shared household whether or not she has any title on such household empowering the Magistrate to secure the said right/s of a woman by passing an order"

Discussing the role of a Protection Officer, the Court remarked that the appointment is for providing assistance to the woman/aggrieved person with respect to her medical examination/obtaining legal aid, safe shelter etc. fundamentally to assist the Magistrate in discharge of his functions under the Act.

Noting that the Protection Officer has been put in the control and supervision of the Magistrate and had to perform the duties imposed on him by the Magistrate and by or under the Act, the Court stressed that in the present case however, the PO has miserably failed to carry out the directions of the Magistrate, compelling the petitioner herein to approach this Court after having failed in her attempts to seek implementation of the orders from the Trial Magistrate.

The Guidlines laid are as following:

A. It shall neither be the duty of the Protection Officer nor his/her domain to undertake any mediation/conciliation once a Magistrate is seized of a domestic violence case. The Protection Officer has no mandate to undertake such an exercise.
B. A Protection Officer is under a statutory duty to assist the Magistrate in discharge of his functions under the Act and to carry out directions/orders passed by such Magistrate under the Act as it is without making his own interpretation therein and in the event, a Protection Officer faces any difficulty in understanding purported spirit of a direction or faces any other difficulty thereto, such Protection Officer shall approach the concerned Magistrate for clarification.
C. A nominated Protection Officer shall remain easily accessible to an aggrieved person for any immediate action the aggrieved person may require. 
D. A nominated Protection Officer need to be guided by imparting necessary training by the Government viz-a-viz the provisions of the Act and its application so that the purpose and objects of the Act are effectively fulfilled and achieved.
E. The magistrate should as far as practicable ensure the presence of the concerned Protection Officer while passing orders interim orders under the provisions of the Act and make the Protection Officer to understand the nature of the order and the manner in which the same is to be executed. For example, the Protection Officer can get the order for monetary relief under section 20 complied with and executed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Protection Officer should be made to understand his powers for effective implementation of the provisions of the Act as well as orders passed by the magistrate.

Case Title: Neelofar Rasool vs Imtiyaz Ahmad Ahangar and others

Case Details: CM(M) No. 172/2021 (O&M)

Coram: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani

Read Order @LatestLaws.com:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon