The court upheld that every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in a shared household under the D.V. Act, emphasizing the Act's protective nature.

ORDER

Date : 11.09.2024 Heard Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. The applicant being wife of the respondent No. 2, through this interlocutory application, has prayed to vacate the interim order passed by this Court in connection with Criminal Revision Pet. No. 525/2023, wherein further proceeding of Misc. D.V.

Case No. 211m/2022 was stayed.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant is an Assistant Teacher in L.P. School, Mangaldai. She filed an application under Section 12 of Protection from Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after D.V. Act) seeking relief under Section 18, 19, 20,22, and 23 of the said Act before the court of learned CJM, Kamrup(M). On receipt of the said application, a case was registered vide Misc. D.V. Case No. 211m/2022 and the said case is pending for adjudication in the court of JMFC, Kamrup(M).

4. On 14.12.2022, the protection officer, Kamrup(M) submitted a domestic incident report before the learned CJM, Kamrup(M) in connection with this case. Accordingly, on 10.06.2023 learned JMFC, Kamrup(M) passed an interim order directing the revision petitioner to allow the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household along with her child until further order. The revision petitioner was further directed not to evict the aggrieved person i.e. the applicant and her minor child from the shared household and he was also directed not to commit any such domestic violence to the aggrieved person.

5. The revision petitioner has challenged the said order of learned magistrate dated 10.06.2023 and filed an appeal before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) vide Criminal Appeal No. 37/2023. After hearing both sides, the appellate court dismissed the said appeal by affirming the order of the JMFC, Kamrup(M). Subsequently, the revision petition has been preferred by the husband of the applicant vide No. 525/2023. The said revision petition came up for consideration before this Court on 11.12.2023 and this Court without hearing the other side, passed an order directing that till returnable date further proceeding of Misc. Case No. 211m/2022 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Kamrup(M) shall remain stayed. Hence this interlocutory application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife has argued that the D.V. Act is a beneficial legislation and has been introduced with the intention to safeguard the interest of women and children who gets subjected to domestic violence. Apart from that the provision of the said act are quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature and the orders passed under the said Act basically relief oriented and not punitive in nature until and unless the orders are duly complied with.

7. It is further submitted that any order passed under the D.V. Act may not be put to challenge due to mere technicalities. In the present case also, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is for the welfare of the aggrieved person as well as her minor child and due to the said order, the revision petitioner does not suffer in any manner whatsoever. Apart from that, the applicant’s son is also the biological son of the revision petitioner and as such, the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate in favour of the applicant’s son is also beneficial for the revision petitioner.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following case law-- Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi , reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 90 .

8. In the aforesaid case, it was held that- “.....31. Section 12 of the D.V. Act states that an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the D.V. Act. The proviso, however, states that before passing any order on such an application, the Magistrat