SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(J&K) 286

SANJAY DHAR
Shameema Begum (Mst) – Appellant
Versus
Javid Iqbal Khan – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sheikh Manzoor

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant interim residence orders under Section 23 of the DV Act based on prima facie evidence of domestic violence, without awaiting the trial’s conclusion. (!) - Interim residence orders can be granted by a Magistrate while considering an application under Section 12, based on prima facie evidence of violence, and need not await full trial, to provide urgent relief. (!) (!) - Section 19 enumerates the conditions for residence orders and supports interim relief; a final residence order can be passed at the final disposal of the petition, but interim orders may be granted if prima facie conditions are satisfied. (!) (!) - The impugned appellate order, which claimed residence relief could be granted only after trial, is contrary to the provisions of the DV Act and the object of providing immediate relief. (!) - The petition is allowed; the impugned order setting aside interim relief is set aside. (!)

What is the authority of a Magistrate to grant interim residence orders under Section 23 of the DV Act based on prima facie evidence without concluding the main case?

What is the scope of interim relief under Section 19 of the DV Act in relation to residence orders and the stage at which such orders may be granted?

What is the correct interpretation of Sections 19 and 23 of the DV Act regarding interim residence orders and the need (or not) to await trial’s conclusion?


JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 14.12.2022 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against order dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), in a complaint filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as "the DV Act"), has been allowed and the order of the trial Magistrate has been set aside.

2. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent but despite service, he did not choose to appear and contest the case.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case.

4. It appears that the petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the respondent, filed a petition under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband (respondent herein) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Kupwara (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Magistrate"). Along with the said petition, the petitioner also filed an application for grant of interim relief in terms of Section 23 of the DV Act. In the petition filed before the trial Magistrate, the petitioner alleged that she is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top