APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER(S) CM(M) No. 57 of 2023 · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

Through: Mr. S. M. Shah, Advocate. Vs Tazeem Akhter .…. Respondent(s) Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. Through: ORDER 13.04.2023 The petitioner no. 1 was married to respondent – Tazeem Akhter whom the petitioner refers to be his first wife but divorced, and the petitioner no. 2 to be his second wife. Both the petitioners feel aggrieved of at the action of the respondent – Tazeem Akhter in initiating proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which she has come to institute before the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Poonch. The petition is under section 12, 19, 21 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner no. 1, in particular, without joining the issue before the Magistrate below has come up with the present petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the proceedings on the premise that the marital relationship between him and the respondent had come to be settled by virtue of a written compromise which had resulted in closure of maintenance case of the respondent against the petitioner no.

1 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Surankote in 2022 in terms whereof the petitioner no. 1 claims to have paid an amount of Rs. 8.00 lacs as part of the settlement to the respondent. 2 CM(M) No. 57/2023 CM No. 2088/2023 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that action on the part of the respondent in coming forward with the litigation under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is nothing but an abuse of process of law as the respondent has not divulged anything regarding the settlement between her and the petitioner no. 1 in the earlier course of litigation between the two in the form of maintenance proceedings. Since the petitioner no. 1 has approached this Court without causing his appearance and filing his response/reply to the said petition of the respondent, as such, this Court feels that it is premature on the part of the petitioner no. 1 to come to approach this Court and, as such, dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner no.

1 to cause appearance in the matter and file his response/reply and take all these points to apprise the Magistrate concerned about the non-maintenance of the respondent’s petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Magistrate concerned shall be obliged to deal with the objection of the petitioner no. 1 in the context of maintainability of the respondent’s petition in the face of the fact as the petitioner no. 1 claims that the marital relationship between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent has been settled resulting in a divorce which came to be acted upon in the form of an amount of Rs. 8.00 lacs paid to the respondent. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed with connected CM. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE Jammu 13.04.2023 Bunty