In a petition filed before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court to challenge proceedings emanating from the case of the respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), pending before the Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Srinagar, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar directed the Magistrate that if the petitioners file an application for dropping the impugned proceedings, the same shall be decided within one month and stayed the case against the husband’s relatives until the application is decided.
In the present matter, the petitioners also challenged an order dated 11-07-2025 by the Magistrate whereby the husband (petitioner 1) was directed to pay monetary compensation of Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 4000/- per month to the wife (respondent 1) and the daughter (respondent 2), respectively, along with monthly rentals.
The husband and wife got married on 30-08-2021, and a daughter was born to them. Thereafter, the husband and his relatives behaved in a cruel manner towards the wife, and it was the case of the respondents that the wife had been a victim of domestic violence, continuous harassment, and torture at the hands of the husband.
The husband contended that his relatives had been unnecessarily impleaded in the impugned matter to coerce him into entering into a compromise with the wife on her terms. It was asserted that the Magistrate had passed the impugned order without Section 18 of the DV Act being satisfied and that the case had been entertained in a mechanical manner.
The Court stated that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution, which is why the Magistrate is competent to drop the proceedings against all or any of the relatives if it is found that they have been roped in unnecessarily.
The Court found itself supported by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 446. It said that in a proceeding under Section 12 of the DV Act, if the Magistrate concludes that no case to proceed arises after receiving the husband and his relatives’ version, not only can the proceedings be dropped, but the order of interim monetary compensation can also be recalled.
Thus, the Court said that the petitioners may apply to the Magistrate to seek an order to drop the proceedings against them. In such an event, the Magistrate was directed to pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties within one month from the date of application.
Further, the Court noted that, apart from the husband, two of his relatives had also been impleaded and stated that if the petitioners file the said application before the Magistrate within ten days, the proceedings in the impugned complaint against both relatives will remain stayed till the Magistrate decides the application.
Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) – Mr. Salih Pirzada
For Respondent(s) – None
