Interim monetary compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is essential for the sustenance of a spouse residing separately, pending trial of allegations.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the respondents against him under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereafter for short “the D.V.Ac”) as also order dated 31.12.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Anantnag in the said proceedings, alongwith order dated 10.05.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Anantnag whereby order dated 31.12.2020 passed by learned trial Magistrate has been upheld.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. It appears that the respondents herein have filed a petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act against the petitioner, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Anantnag. In the said petition respondent No.1 has claimed that he is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and out of the said wedlock respondent Nos.2 to 5 were born. In the petition filed by the respondents before the trial Magistrate it has been alleged by them that the petitioner has assaulted respondent No.1 on numerous occasions and has mercilessly beaten her up, as a result of which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home alongwith her children.

4. It seems that the petitioner contested the petition before the learned trial Magistrate by filing objections in which he claimed that he has pronounced divorce upon respondent No.1 on 04.07.2017, but thereafter, due to intervention of some respectable members of the society, the parties entered into a compromise, whereby, respondent No.1 has undertaken to go back to her matrimonial home alongwith children but she resiled from this compromise and left the company of petitioner out of her own will and volition. The petitioner has also denied the allegations of respondent No.1 relating the acts of cruelty.

5. The Learned trial Magistrate after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2020, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay interim monetary compensation of Rs.3000/- per month to respondent No.1, whereas no monetary compensation was awarded in favour of other respondents, as they have attained the age of majority. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of revision petition before learned Sessions Judge Anantnag, but the said petition came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge in terms of impugned order dated 10.05.2023.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings and the impugned orders primarily on the ground that he has pronounced divorce upon respondent No.1 and, as such, she is not entitled to any monetary compensation from him. It has been further contended that a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.1 during the proceedings under Section 488 of J&K Cr.P.C and respondent No.1 agreed to return to the fold of the petitioner alongwith children but she failed to resume the conjugal relationship with the petitioner, thereby making a breach of the terms of compromise. On this ground it is contended that respondent No.1 is not entitled to any monetary compensation.

7. So far as the allegations of cruelty made by respondent No.1 in her complaint filed against the petitioner are concerned, the same have been disputed by the petitioner. The veracity of allegations made by respondent No.1 in the impugned petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act can only be determined during the trial of the case and not in these proceedings. Similarly, the contention of the petitioner that he has pronounced divorce upon respondent No.1 is also an issue which can be determined only after the trial of the case. Whether respondent No.1 was justified in not returning to matrimonial fold with petitioner and whether the terms of compromise could not be adhered to by the parties on account of reasons attributable to the petitioner or on account of reasons attributable to respondent No.1, are the issues which can be decided only after trial of the case. At this stage once it is admitted that respondent No.1 was legal