Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Parshotam Singh vs Rita Devi And Ors on 9 February, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No. 12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 14 of 2022 (O&M)
(Through Video Conferencing)
Parshotam Singh .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Vs
Rita Devi and ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
09.02.2022
1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate/Munsiff, Reasi (hereinafter to be referred as learned Magistrate) whereby learned Magistrate has granted maintenance of Rs. 13000/- in favour of respondent No. 1.
2. The facts emerging from the record are that respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 12 of the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act of 2005) against the petitioner and his other relatives i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the learned Magistrate, Reasi. In the petition, respondent No. 1 alleged that the petitioner herein, who happens to be her husband and his relatives, besides demanding dowry from her, inflicted acts of cruelty upon her due to which she has become a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the petitioner and his family members. It has been further alleged that respondent No.1 was thrown out by her husband and his other relatives from her matrimonial home in the month of June, 2019. The 2 CRM(M) No. 14 of 2022 petitioner is stated to be serving in Indian Army and is earning a handsome salary.
3. The petitioner herein resisted the application by filing a reply thereto. In his reply, the allegations leveled by respondent No. 1 in the proceedings filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 have been refuted by him. It has been alleged in the reply that respondent No. 1 has lodged an FIR for offence under Section 376 of IPC against the petitioner and that the marriage between him and respondent No. 1 has never been consummated. The allegations of demand of dowry and inflicting of domestic violence upon respondent No. 1 by petitioner and his family members have also been denied. The petitioner has further denied the allegations of desertion and stated that respondent No. 1 never resided with him.
4. It appears that learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned directing the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 after taking note of the objections filed by petitioner herein but without hearing his counsel as the counsel was not present on the date when arguments were heard.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. Although the impugned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after objections were filed by the petitioner, yet the fact of the matter remains that neither the petitioner nor his counsel were heard before passing the impugned order because they were not present before the Court on the date of hearing. In view of the absence of the petitioner and his counsel before the learned Magistrate on the relevant date, the contentions raised by the petitioner 3 CRM(M) No. 14 of 2022 in his objections have not been effectively considered by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order.
7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate with a direction that he shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and thereafter pass a fresh order, as regards, the question of grant of interim maintenance in favour of respondent No.1. The impugned order dated 23.10.2021 is treated in the nature of an ex parte order and the same would be subject to the alteration/modification after hearing the parties afresh. The matter shall be considered by learned Magistrate preferably within a period of 15 days from the date a copy of this order is produced before the learned Magistrate.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Dhar) Judge Jammu 09.02.2022 Paramjeet