Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Neelofar Rasool - Petitioner
Versus
Imtiyaz Ahmad Ahangar & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) No. 172 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-05-2022
PROTECTION OF WOMEN - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 20, 151 of CPC - The court discussed the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, emphasizing the rights of women to reside in a shared household and the role of Protection Officers in enforcing court orders. The Act aims to protect women from domestic violence and provides for the appointment of Protection Officers to assist in this process. The court highlighted the failure of the Protection Officer to comply with court orders, leading to the establishment of guidelines for their conduct and responsibilities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reliefs to enforce a trial court order allowing her to reside in her matrimonial home and to obtain custody of her minor child, following a domestic violence complaint against her husband. The trial court had previously ordered maintenance and residence rights for the petitioner, which the husband attempted to undermine through a civil suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's orders had been disregarded by the respondents, particularly the Protection Officer, who failed to ensure compliance. The petitioner was ultimately granted possession of the shared household and custody of her child, with the husband agreeing to temporary custody arrangements.
Issues: Whether the Protection Officer fulfilled their statutory duties under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and whether the petitioner’s rights to reside in the shared household and custody of her child were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Protection Officer must assist the magistrate in executing orders under the Act without engaging in mediation. The failure of the Protection Officer to comply with the court's directives necessitated the establishment of guidelines to ensure proper enforcement of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of in light of the compliance with the trial court's orders, but the court laid down guidelines for Protection Officers to ensure effective implementation of the Act in future cases.
JUDGMENT :
Javed Iqbal Wani, J.
1. The petitioner in the instant petition has implored for the following reliefs:-
"i. By issuance of an order or direction, direct the respondent No. 1 to comply with the directions issued by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2021.
ii. By issuance of an order or direction, direct the respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner to reside in her matrimonial home at Shaheen Mohalla, Noorbagh, Srinagar as directed by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2021.
iii. By issuance of an order or direction, direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to ensure that the petitioner is allowed to reside in her matrimonial home at Noorbagh as directed by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2021.
iv. By issuance of an order or direction, direct the respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child namely Umar Imtiyaz to the petitioner".
2. The background facts under the shade and cover of which the reliefs aforesaid have been sought would reveal that a complaint had been filed by the petitioner herein under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Act') against respondent No. 1 (husband) before the Court of 2nd Additional Munsiff (JMIC), Srinagar, wherein the said Court had passed an order on 16.08.2021, inter-alia, directing the respondent No. 1 to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner herein and the minor son respectively besides paying the education expenses of the child. The petitioner had been also allowed to reside in the shared household without any interference pursuant to another direction passed on 16.08.2021 by the said Court besides directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein being the husband and the brother-in-law of the petitioner respectively to refrain from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner.
3. The said directions contained in order dated 16.08.2021 had been addressed to respondent No. 3 - the Designated Protection Officer.
4. In order to defeat and frustrate the direction passed by the Court below on 16.08.2021, the husband-respondent No. 1 herein is stated to have filed a civil suit impleading the petitioner herein with her two brothers as defendants therein in connivance with his father in respect of the residential house/(shared household) and having succeeded in obtaining an ex-parte order of status-quo qua the possession of the said house.
5. The said order of status-quo is stated to have got modified by the petitioner herein after filing response to the suit as well as the application for interim relief the giving right of residence to the petitioner herein in the said shared household.
6. Another attempt is stated to have been made by the father of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for avoiding the sharing of the household by filing an application in the said Court, wherein the suit had been filed by the father of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein for recalling of the modified order which, however, is stated to have been rejected by the said Court on 14.09.2021.
7. It is being stated that after the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 failed in their attempts to defeat the order passed by the Court below in the domestic violence case filed by the petitioner herein, the implementation of the said order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the court below was sought by the petitioner while laying a motion under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the Court below passed an order on 28.09.2021, directing the respondent No. 3 - the Protection Officer to ensure the compliance of order dated 16.08.2021 also directing respondent No. 4 to provide necessary assistance to the respondent No. 3 in this regard.
8. The respondent No. 3, however, instead of carrying out the directions passed by the Court below dated 16.08.2021 and 28.09.2021 is stated to have made an attempt to hold a parallel Court in order to decide as to whether the petitioner is to be allowed to reside in the shared househo
AI
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act mandates that Protection Officers assist in enforcing court orders and prohibits them from mediating once a case is before a magistrate, highlightin....
An interim order preventing a woman from being dispossessed from a shared household qualifies as a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act, enforceable under Section 31.
Prohibition orders under the Domestic Violence Act must only apply to jointly held or solely owned properties, and orders cannot restrict property not jointly possessed, ensuring jurisdictional limit....
Police protection under the Domestic Violence Act is discretionary and not warranted when the aggrieved party expresses a desire to live independently.
Award of maintenance – It is not mandatory for aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief.
Primary obligation under DV Act to provide residence and maintenance to aggrieved wife lies with husband; in-laws not liable for accommodation in self-acquired property where no shared household exis....
The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 allows for protection orders to be sought without a limitation period, and a domestic relationship is defined broadly to include past cohabitation, regardless of curre....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
