Abuse of process of law in filing multiple petitions under section 12 of the DV Act on the same cause of action and the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to revoke orders and drop proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged the application filed by the respondents against them under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act), which is stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (1st Additional Munsiff), Srinagar.

2. As per the case of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 had entered into wedlock with respondent No. 1 in the year 2016 and out of this wedlock, one child i.e. respondent No. 2 herein, was born. It is alleged that from the very inception of the marriage, the attitude of respondent No. 1 was not good towards the petitioners and she always wanted petitioner No. 1 to live separately from his ailing mother, petitioner No. 2 herein. It is submitted that efforts were made by the petitioners to settle the differences between them and respondent No. 1 and to resume the matrimonial relationship but all these efforts failed compelling petitioner No. 1 to divorce respondent No. 1 in terms of deed of divorce dated 23.08.2021.

3. It is submitted that as a reaction to the aforesaid act of petitioner No. 1, respondent No. 1 an application under DV Act before Special Mobile Magistrate (13th Finance), Srinagar, on 24.08.2021 against the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the said Court in the said application and learned Magistrate started exploring the possibility of a negotiated settlement between the parties. It is alleged that in the last week of October, 2021, respondent No. 1 along with her relatives came to the house of the petitioners and assaulted them and they were thrown out forcibly from their home. The petitioners are stated to have approached the police but the police did not take any action in the matter.

4. It has been submitted by the petitioners that upon enquiry relating to reasons for the police for not taking action in the matter, they came to know that respondent No. 1 has another application under section 12 of the DV Act (hereinafter referred as the impugned petition) against the petitioners before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (1st Additional Munsiff), Srinagar. It was also found by the petitioners that on 28.10.2021, respondent No. 1 had approached the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Srinagar and made a statement that the parties have settled their disputes outside the Court and on this ground, she sought withdrawal of the earlier application under section 12 of the DV Act which was, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 28.10.2021.

5. It has been contended that the second application under the provisions of the DV Act on same cause of action filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed. It has been further contended that respondent No. 1 has concealed the factum of filing of earlier application under the provisions of DV Act while filing the second application. It is also contended that respondent No. 1 has made a false statement before the learned Magistrate while withdrawing her earlier application, by stating that she has settled the disputes with the petitioners and if the said statement is taken to be correct, then there was no cause available to respondent No. 1 to file the impugned complaint against the petitioners.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that of second petition under section 12 of the DV Act by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners on the same cause of action on which the earlier petition was by her against them amounts to abuse of process of law. The learned counsel has submitted that when respondent No. 1 failed to obtain an interim order from the learned Magistrate in the earlier petition, she has mischievously the impugned petition and obtained an interim orde