In a significant ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on December 13, 2024, addressed the procedural requirements for challenging interim relief orders under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi presided over the case, which involved allegations of domestic violence and a contentious debate on the attire of women advocates during court appearances.

The petitioners, comprising the respondent’s husband, sister-in-law, mother-in-law, and father-in-law, approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. The Magistrate had, on November 16, 2024, granted interim relief under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, directing:

• A monthly maintenance of ₹25,000 to the respondent (wife).
• A restraint on the husband from alienating a property measuring 08 Kanals and 17 Marlas located in Ranbirpur, Thiksay, Leh.
• Bonds of ₹30,000 to be secured by the other petitioners to ensure compliance with the Court’s orders.

The Magistrate also directed the Station House Officer (SHO) and Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) to visit the petitioners’ premises and ensure compliance with the directions.

The petitioners challenged this order, asserting that the allegations lacked substance and were designed to harass them. They claimed that the respondent never resided with the extended family, making the charges of domestic violence against them baseless.

The case involved legal issues pertaining to maintainability of the petition as the petitioners bypassed the appellate mechanism under the Domestic Violence Act, directly invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.

The Court was considering the pettition which was under Section 29  of the Domestic Violence Act  which provides for an appellate mechanism, allowing parties to challenge Magistrates’ orders before the Sessions Court within 30 days.

Justice Kazmi noted, “The petitioners, without availing the statutory remedy of appeal, have directly approached this Court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is not an alternative to statutory remedies unless there is a clear procedural irregularity or miscarriage of justice.” The Court referenced precedents, including Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, which delineates the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the interim relief granted by the Magistrate was excessive and not based on substantive evidence. However, the Court found that the allegations raised in the respondent’s application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, coupled with the Magistrate’s interim order, warranted no interference at this stage.

Petitioners’ Contentions

• The petitioners argued that the respondent fabricated allegations of domestic violence to harass them and secure financial benefits.
• They emphasized that the respondent never resided at the husband’s parental home, rendering the allegations against the extended family baseless.
• The petitioners claimed that the Magistrate’s order was passed without considering their rebuttal and was, therefore, arbitrary.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent, through her counsel, defended the interim relief as necessary given the allegations of harassment and financial insecurity.
• The respondent’s counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, asserting that the petitioners should have availed the statutory appellate remedy under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate’s interim order and directing the petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate forum under the Domestic Violence Act for further relief. 

Case Title: Mohammad Yasin Khan & Ors. v. Nazia Iqbal
Case No.: CRM(M) No. 704/2024
Bench: Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi