1. Petitioners through the medium of petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. are seeking quashment of complaints titled "Shweta Sharma and others v. Vinay Sharma and others filed under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, and order dated 12.10.2013 by virtue of which they have been directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondents (petitioners herein) as an interim maintenance to the respondents-complaints on the grounds taken in it.

2. It is contended that relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 as husband and wife remained cordial for sometime. Thereafter, respondent No.1 started harassing the petitioners on petty issues at the instigation of her parents. It is also contended that things became worst when petitioner No. 1 objected respondent No. 1's telephonic conversation with some unwanted persons and that too for long duration due to which petitioner No.1 became depressed and started taking alcohol. Petitioner No.1 was forced by respondent No.1 and her parents to live separately from his parents and started living in a rented accommodation. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed complaints against petitioners and dragged them to the Women Cell. It is also contended that respondent No.1 though was posted as Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department, J&K Government, yet petitioner No.1 used to give Rs.10,000/- to her despite the fact that she had deserted the company of petitioner No. 1 more than three years ago. Respondent No.1 even did not allow petitioner No.1 to meet her daughters. It is also contended that at one point of time, elders of both the families sat together for an amicable solution, but, respondent No.1's family demanded Rs. 30.00 lac for ending the marriage of the parties. Respondent No.1 in order to extract money from him filed a Petition under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. On this, learned trial Court, vide order dated 12.10.2013 has ordered, in ex parte, to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the complainants-respondents herein.

3. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaints as well as order dated 12.10.2013 are not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned trial Court has not taken into consideration any domestic incident/report in terms of Section 12 of the Act of 2010 and also the affidavit have not been filed as per the provisions of the Act. Moreover, respondent No.1 in her complaints had admitted in para No. 12 that petitioners 2 and 3 are living separately from them and do not constitute a joint family any more, for the last more than 4 years, so they should not have been arrayed as party respondents in the complaint filed under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no jurisdictional error in taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 12 of the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act or granting interim relief under Section 23 of the said Act. Since there is an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 29, as such, present petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is admitted case of the parties that both petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 were living as husband and wife and their relations remained cordial for some time.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing submitted that the Magistrate has not taken the cognizance of the matter as per Section 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010. As per the proviso of Sub-section (1) of the Section 12 of the Act of 2010, the Magistrate can take cognizance of the compliant only after taking into consideration of the domestic incident/report received by hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document