2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1999

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Siddhartha Sah, J
Mayank Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Chandana – Respondent
C482 No. 444 of 2022

The challenge to a summoning order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, invokes the court's jurisdiction to examine the sufficiency of allegations to justify initiation of proceedings.

Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a summoning order issued under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The applicants seek to quash the proceedings initiated by the respondent. The court is tasked with determining whether the procedural requirements for issuance of summons in domestic violence matters were satisfied based on the complaint allegations. The primary issue before the court is the legality and validity of the summoning order passed against the applicants. The court examines the material provided in the complaint to determine if a prima facie case exists to warrant judicial intervention under its inherent powers. The matter remains pending for further adjudication.

Table of Content
1. challenging the legality of summoning orders in domestic violence proceedings via inherent powers. (Para 2 , 3)

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures

2. By means of the present C482 Application, the applicants have assailed the summoning order dated 15-03-2022 qua the applicants passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, District Haridwar in Misc. Case No.M224 of 2021, “Smt. Chandana vs. Mayank Sharma & others” under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, ‘Act, 2005’) as well as entire proceedings of Misc. Case No.M224 of 2021, “Smt. Chandana vs. Mayank Sharma & others”, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Roorkee, District Haridwar.

3. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the applicants would draw the attention of this Court to the complaint by the respondent no.2. On mentioning certain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document