The leniency in pleading requirements for petitions under the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010, and the maintainability of a second complaint based on a bona-fide mistake regarding the withdrawal of a previous petition.

1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. petitioner seeks quashing of application u/s 12(a) of J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 titled Nusrat Naz vs. Arshad Iqbal and Others, pending before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Rajouri, being File No. 56-A dated 20.09.2017 and subsequent proceedings thereof.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized in the month of April, 2015, in accordance with Muslim Shariet Law and out of the wedlock one male child, namely, Shahid Ashraf was born. Thereafter the petitioner and the respondent lived peacefully as husband and wife. After few months of the marriage, the respondent started quarrelling with the petitioner and his family members day in and day out without any rhyme and reason. The petitioner and his family members requested the respondent to mend her ways but she did not accede to their request. It is further stated that ultimately, the respondent left the company of the petitioner in the year 2016 and started living in her parental home. The petitioner and his family members, on a number of times went to the parental house of the respondent to bring the respondent back to her matrimonial home, but the family members of the respondent refused to send the respondent back and told the petitioner to give divorce to the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner divorced the respondent by way of Divorce Deed dated 04.11.2016 and the said deed was duly received by the respondent.

3. It is further stated in the petition that after lapse of few months, the respondent filed a petition under Sections 12 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2010 against the petitioner in the Court of learned District Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Rajouri, on false and frivolous grounds despite the fact that the petitioner divorced the respondent by virtue of aforesaid Divorce Deed and has snapped all the ties with the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed another petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance in the aforesaid Court against the petitioner and the learned trial court has also granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of the petitioner No. 2, namely, Shahid Ashraf in the said petition. It is further averred in the petition that the respondent once again filed a petition/complaint under Section 12 (a) of Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner and his family members before the Special Mobile Magistrate, Rajouri, on 20.09.2017 in order to harass the petitioner and his family members and the petitioner filed his response in the said petition in which the petitioner has stated that the respondent has earlier also filed a petition under Section 12(a) of Domestic Violence Act and two same petitions against the petitioner are not maintainable. But the Hon’ble Court has not appreciated the aforesaid fact.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned petition/complaint and subsequent proceedings therein, has challenged the same on the following grounds:-

(a) That the impugned complaint and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is the abuse of the process of the law because the earlier complaint under domestic violence Act filed by the respondent against the petitioner is sub-judice before the court below but during the pendency of the same the respondent has filed another petition on same facts which is against the law, facts and all canons of natural justice, as such, the impugned complaint and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

(b) That the impugned complaint and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is the abuse of the process of the law as the marriage between the two was admittedly solemnized in the year 2015 and it is also an admitted position that since 2016 both the parties are residing separately and the impugned complaint was filed before the court