The court affirmed the right of the respondent to interim maintenance and right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing the legal obligation of the husband and the need for proof of divorce during the trial.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge JMIC, Bhaderwah (hereinafter to be referred as the trial Court) passed in an application filed under the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as also the order passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah (hereinafter to be referred as the appellate Court) dated 29.09.2020 by virtue of which the order dated 03.08.2019 was upheld by the appellate Court. Simultaneously, proceedings pending before trial court have also been impugned in the present petition.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is husband of the respondent, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the respondent, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the respondent and petitioner No. 6 is the married sister-in-law of the respondent.

3. The respondent filed an application under Domestic Violence Act for grant of various reliefs and along with the said application, an application for grant of interim relief was also filed. The learned trial Court, after seeking response from the petitioners and after hearing the arguments, vide order dated 03.08.2019 directed the petitioner No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent and Rs. 4,000/- per month to her minor son as interim maintenance and further the petitioners were directed to provide shelter to the respondent in the shared household and further they were restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the respondent.

4. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter assailed the said order passed by the trial Court before the appellate Court and the appellate court vide order dated 29.09.2020 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the trial court.

5. The petitioners have assailed both the orders before this Court and also prayed for the quashing of the proceedings pending before the trial court on the following grounds:

(i) That the learned trial court has granted exorbitant maintenance to the respondent but the petitioner No. 1 does not have any financial capacity to pay the same and further that the said amount was awarded without taking into consideration that the petitioner No. 1 is a small shop keeper, selling kiryana goods and he has to pay the loan instalments as well.

(ii) That both the courts have failed to appreciate that the relationship between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent as husband and wife respectively has ceased to exist after petitioner No. 1 had divorced the respondent. The petitioners have also placed on record the divorce deed.

(iii) That the marriage of petitioner No. 6 was solemnized in the year 2010 and since then, she has been residing in her matrimonial house along with her husband. Both the courts have not considered the fact that there were no allegations against petitioner No. 2 to 5 as well.

6. Mr. Abhishek Wazir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has reiterated the submissions made in the petition on behalf of the petitioners.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Since none appeared on behalf of respondent, so this Court has examined the issue on the basis of the material available on record.

8. The respondent has filed an application under Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for grant of various reliefs including the relief of maintenance and residence to the respondent on the ground that marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnised on 22.09.2009 and one child, namely, Seyhan Malik was born out of the said wed lock. After the solemnization of marriage, the respondent was harassed by the petitioners for not bringing enough jewellery, household and other items and it was alleged in the application that the parties were residing as joint family. After the retirement of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, she was harassed by the petitioners to bring more money from her pa