The court emphasized that the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not strictly criminal in nature, allowing the Magistrate to vary or annul the order and drop the proceedings if the petitioners have been unnecessarily roped in.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged the application filed by respondent against them under Section 12 of the J&K, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as “the DV Act”) which is stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Addl. Munsiff, Samba). Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 09.09.2022, whereby the learned Magistrate has issued notice to the petitioners and petitioner No. 1 has been directed to pay interim monetary compensation of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent/complainant.

2. As per case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 20.10.2021 and within a short period of time, the respondent acted with cruelty against her husband and his family members, i.e. the petitioners herein. It has been alleged that the behavior of the respondent against the petitioners remained rude, impolite and coercive. It has been further contended that the respondent started making false allegations against the petitioners and misbehaved with them. It has been also averred that the respondent left the company of petitioner No. 1 and her matrimonial home without informing petitioner No. 1 and his other family members. It is averred that on 04.05.2022 at the time when the respondent left her matrimonial home, she took away alongwith her all the gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 4.00 lacs. It has been submitted that petitioner No. 1, in view of adulterous life of the respondent and her bad attitude towards the petitioner No 1 and his family members including his mother, filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage before the Court of learned Principal Family Court, Jammu and as a counterblast to the same, the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against petitioner No. 1 for restitution of conjugal rights and she also filed the impugned complaint against the petitioners levelling false allegations against them.

3. It has been submitted that the respondent by filing the impugned application has abused the process of the Court and the learned Trial Magistrate, without verifying the facts mentioned in the impugned complaint, has passed the impugned order dated 09.09.2022, whereby petitioner No. 1 has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as interim monetary compensation to the respondent.

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

5. As already noted that the petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act against them as also order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the said application, whereby interim monetary compensation has been awarded by the trial Magistrate in favour the respondent. So far as proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in case of Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Others vs. Mst. Sana and Another in CRM (M) No. 386/2021, decided on 02.09.2022. In the said case, this Court has, while relying upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamatch vs. Lakshmi Naryanan, 2022, SCC Online SC 446, observed as under:

“(10) The petitioners, in effect, are aggrieved of the impugned petition filed by respondent No. 1 against them and the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the said petition. So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, the trial Magistrate, after obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The learned Magistra