Read Time: 07 minutes
The court elucidated that when issuing an interim residence order in favour of the aggrieved person, the Magistrate is not required to conduct a trial but must be reasonably satisfied based on the application submitted
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, reinforcing the protective framework envisioned under the Domestic Violence Act, has clarified that the object of a residence order is to protect a woman from homelessness ruling that a magistrate can grant an interim residence order in favour of an aggrieved person without holding a trial.
A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, highlighted that magistrates possess the jurisdiction to grant interim relief, including residence orders, even before the trial is concluded. “Residence order is an urgent relief to protect a woman from her taking shelter on road,” the court observed, while setting aside an appellate order that had disallowed the grant of an interim residence order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act).
The petitioner, Shameema Begum, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act against her husband, Javid Iqbal Khan, in the Judicial Magistrate Court (Munsiff) at Kupwara. In her complaint, she alleged verbal, emotional, and physical abuse, alongside deprivation of basic amenities like food, shelter and medication. Alongside her petition, she sought interim relief under Section 23 of the DV Act, requesting secure accommodation and protection.
The trial magistrate, on July 16, 2021, passed an ex parte interim order directing the respondent to provide the petitioner with residential accommodation, including a kitchen, bathroom, and washroom. The respondent challenged this order before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, who dismissed the appeal on August 6, 2021, but allowed the respondent to seek modification before the trial magistrate.
After the respondent filed objections, the trial magistrate, on December 7, 2021, declined interim monetary compensation considering the petitioner’s employment as a government teacher but maintained the order directing the provision of safe accommodation. The respondent then appealed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, who on December 14, 2022, who set aside the trial magistrate’s order stating that relief could only be granted after a full trial, as per Section 19 of the DV Act.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sheikh Manzoor, challenged this ruling in the High Court. The petitioner argued that the appellate court misinterpreted Sections 19 and 23 of the DV Act, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The court observed that the magistrate has the power to grant interim orders, including residence orders, under Section 23 of the DV Act, without holding a trial and that the magistrate only needs to draw satisfaction from the application filed by the aggrieved person. “The Magistrate at the time of passing an interim residence order in favour of the aggrieved person is not required to hold a trial but he is only required to draw satisfaction from the application filed by the aggrieved person,” stated the court.
The court further highlighted that the appellate court’s interpretation was inconsistent with both the statutory provisions and the legislative intent of the DV Act. According to the High Court, denying interim relief undermines the purpose of the Act, which aims to protect women from homelessness and provide immediate protection from domestic abuse.
Consequently, the court set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, restoring the trial magistrate’s order for interim residence.
Cause Title: Shameema Begum v Javid Iqbal Khan [CRM(M) No.36/2023]
Please Login or Register
