The need for evidence and the applicability of specific legal precedents in determining the maintainability of complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant petition, inherent power of this Court is being invoked under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (482 Cr.P.C.) for quashment of order dated 20.10.2018 as also complaint titled as "Shahnaz Vs. Mehmood Ahmed and Ors." pending before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Jammu (hereinafter for short, 'Trial Court') including order dated 24.11.2016 and 21/02/2017. Further order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter for short, 'Appellate Court') is also being challenged.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged in the petition, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts in brief spelt out in the petition:-

(a) A petition under section 12 read with Sections 18, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 (hereinafter for short, 'The Act') is stated to have been filed by the respondent No. 1 herein against the petitioner herein and the performa respondents herein including one Dr. Rukhsana Chowdhary before the trial Court wherein a process is stated to have been issued by the trial court besides granting an amount of Rs. 12,000/- as maintenance p.m. in favour of respondent No. 1 and a further direction that the respondent herein shall not be harassed by the petitioner herein and performa respondents herein.

(b) Before the filing of the said complaint under the Act, the respondent No. 1 is stated to have filed proceedings under Section 488 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner herein for herself and her minor daughter, namely, Zoha Chowdhary, wherein respondent No. 1 is stated to have contended that after her marriage with the petitioner on 24.04.2002, daughter, namely, Zoha Chowdhary was born on 19.09.2008 and that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 15.10.2012 by the petitioner herein and that the Court granted a maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as an interim maintenance therein in the said proceedings in favour of the respondent No. 2, and that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner herein took the respondent No. 2 along with the minor daughter back to his home in the month of April 2013 whereupon the respondent No. 1 withdrew the said maintenance case and that the respondent No. 2 had further stated in the said maintenance proceedings that she lived with her husband from April 2013 till January 2015 and that in the month of December 2015, she came to know that the petitioner herein has given her divorce on 15.10.2012 and that thereafter she performed another marriage with petitioner on 11.01.2015 and that again she was thrown out from the home along with her daughter by the petitioner immediately thereafter and has been living since then with her mother with no source of income.

(c) It is being further stated that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner herein against order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Trial Court which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court in terms of order dated 22.12.2016 with the liberty to the petitioner herein to approach the trial Court, who shall make an endeavor to decide interim application under Section 23 of the Act as early as possible within a period of six weeks.

(d) It is being further stated that both the orders passed by the trial court and appellate court dated 24.12.2016 as well 22.12.2016 came to be challenged by the petitioner herein before this Court in petition under section 561-A No. 10/2017 which came to be disposed of on 11.01.2017 with a direction to the trial Court to consider the contentions of the petitioner with reference to modification/revocation, vacation of the order by filing a proper motion and to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties expeditiously and till then, the impugned orders shall not be given effect to.

(e) It is being next stated that the petitioner produced the copy of the order passed by this Court on 11.01.2017 before the trial Court and that the trial Court on 21.02.2017, when the petitioner was not pres