Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5) On 16.07.2021, the trial Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under Section 23 of the DV Act, passed an exparte interim order directing the respondent to provide accommodation comprising kitchen, bathroom and washroom to the petitioner and also to provide her sufficient protection.

6) The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kupwara, who, vide order dated 06.08.2021 dismissed the appeal and gave liberty to the respondent to appear before the trial Magistrate and seek variation of order dated 16.07.2021 as the said order was made subject to modification.

10) The issue which is required to be determined in this petition is as to whether a Magistrate, while considering the grant of interim order in favour of an aggrieved person in terms of Section 23 of the DV Act, can pass an order of residence even before the trial of the main case has concluded. In order to determine this issue, the provisions contained in Section 23 of the DV Act are required to be noticed. The same are reproduced as under:

"23. Power to grant interim and ex parte orders.--(1) In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper. (2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a Page |4 likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent.
12) The next question that is required to be determined is as to at what stage an interim order can be passed by a Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Section 23 of the DV Act. Since we are concerned with the residence orders in the present case, therefore, it would be apt to notice the provisions contained in Section 19 of the DV Act, which read as under:
"19. Residence orders.--(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order--

(7) The Magistrate may direct the officer in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order.

(8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.

13) A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that residence orders can be passed by a Magistrate while disposing of main application under Section 12 of the DV Act, meaning thereby that a residence order can be passed by a Magistrate after the trial of the case. However, when we read the provisions of Section 19 in conjunction with Section 23 of the DV Act, it becomes clear that while final residence order can be passed by a Magistrate at the time of final disposal of the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, he is also vested with jurisdiction to grant interim residential order in favour of an aggrieved person if the Magistrate is satisfied that an application of the aggrieved person, prima facie, discloses that the respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence or there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, meaning thereby that 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.