The main legal point established in the judgment is that interim orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be passed only when there is prima facie evidence of domestic violence, and the courts must exercise caution and ensure due process in granting such orders.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 31-01-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agaratala in case No. Crl. Appeal 28(2) of 2013 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 15-05-2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in CR 70 of 2013.

2. The undisputed facts are that Smti. Uma Sarkar (respondent No. 1 herein) was married to Sri Swapan Sarkar (respondent No. 2 herein). The petitioner Ratan Sarkar is the real brother of Swapan Sarkar. It is also not disputed that Ratan Sarkar and Swapan Sarkar had purchased some property jointly. It is, however, claimed by the petitioner that his brother respondent No. 2 sold him his share of property vide a registered sale deed executed in the year 2009.

3. The respondent No. 1, Smti. Uma Sarkar, had earlier filed one petition being CR 235 of 2011 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 5, Agartala, West Tripura in which she had claimed that her hut is in a dilapidated condition and it had become impossible for her to reside in the hut along with her children. According to her, whenever she went to repair the hut, the opposite parties (including the petitioner herein) were obstructing her from doing so. On 04-01-2012, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 5, Agartala passed an ex-parte interim order ordering that in view of the emergent situation the aggrieved person is allowed to repair the room where she has been staying and restrained the respondents, i.e. the petitioner herein and his brother from preventing her from repairing the said hut. Later, on 26-06-2012 the wife withdrew the CR 235 of 2011 on the ground that a report by the CDPO in respect of the matter had been registered in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala and, therefore, she did not want to press the petition and the same was accordingly dropped.

4. None of the parties have been able to apprise me as to what has happened in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala.

5. These proceedings arise out of another petition being CR 70 of 2013 filed by the respondent No. 1 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the present petitioner and respondent No. 2. In this petition, she claimed that she in pursuant to the earlier order had repaired the room but in a cyclone which took place on 09-05-2013 again the hut was damaged and she was being prevented by the husband and his brother from repairing the room. She, therefore, again prayed that she be permitted to repair the room. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the matter and granted ex-parte interim relief permitting her to repair the room. The present petitioner brother-in-law filed an appeal which has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge only on the ground that since the order was an interim order the petitioner had a right to contest the order by leading evidence before the trial Court.

6. Though the matter is a small one and can be disposed of by a short order, I am of the view that certain directions need to be issued as to how such cases should be dealt with. The original case being CR 235 of 2011 was pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 5, Agartala, West Tripura. If on the report of the CDPO, another dispute between the same parties of identical or similar nature was being raised, that should have been sent to the same Court and should not have been sent to some other Court. The third petition between the same parties out of which the present proceedings arise is being tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. When the matter is identical and the parties are the same, there should always be an attempt to avoid conflicting orders being passed by different Courts and it is the duty of the Chief Judicial Magistrate who d