Residence Is an “Urgent Relief”; Magistrate Can Order Safe Accommodation During Pendency of DV Proceedings
SRINAGAR, AUGUST 24: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that an aggrieved woman under the Domestic Violence Act need not wait for the conclusion of the trial to seek interim residence protection, observing that such relief is intended to address an urgent need for shelter and safety.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the observations while hearing a petition filed by a woman challenging an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, which had set aside a trial court direction requiring her husband to provide her with safe and secure accommodation in the shared household.
The High Court examined the scope of Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which empowers a Magistrate to grant interim relief, including an interim residence order, during the pendency of proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act.
The Court clarified that while a final residence order under Section 19 may be passed while finally deciding an application under Section 12, an interim residence order can be granted at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
No Full-Fledged Trial Required for Interim Relief
The High Court observed that a Magistrate is not required to conduct a full-fledged trial before granting interim residential protection. Instead, the Magistrate has to be satisfied, on the basis of the material placed before the court, that the application prima facie discloses an act of domestic violence or a likelihood of such violence.
Justice Dhar stressed the protective objective of the Domestic Violence Act, noting that residence protection constitutes an “urgent relief” aimed at ensuring that an aggrieved woman is not left without shelter or protection during the pendency of legal proceedings.
Sessions Court’s Contrary View Set Aside
The High Court held that the view taken by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, that residence relief could be granted only after the conclusion of the trial was inconsistent with Section 23 of the DV Act and its legislative purpose of providing immediate protection to victims of domestic violence.
The High Court accordingly set aside the Sessions Court order and restored the legal position that interim residential protection can be granted before the main proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are finally decided.
The ruling reinforces the principle that protective relief under the DV Act is intended to be immediate and preventive, rather than being dependent upon the completion of a prolonged trial.(KNC)
