A Srinagar trial court has fined a woman Rs.10 Lakh, who had filed a domestic violence case against her husband in the year 2019.
This landmark judgement passed on by the Court of Small Causes is believed to be
The court while hearing an application filed by one Shamshada Akhter seeking to withdraw a plea filed by her against his husband Aijaz Ahmad Shah under domestic violence act recorded that under the garb of court orders passed in the plea, the wife has “thrown out” her husband from his own house rendering him homeless despite a clear cut direction from court to both the parties to accommodate each other and live peacefully.
“At this point, the petitioner is seeking to withdraw the case just to evade the implementation of court order passed on 29 April, 2020 directing both the parties to accommodate each other in a cordial and friendly relation in the house where the parties were residing before the dispute and the wife Shamshada Akhter shall provide accommodation of two rooms to the husband Aijaz Parvaiz Shah in the said house,” Judge Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi recorded.
“The couple, a resident of Hyderpora, Srinagar had constructed the house jointly but don’t possess any child,” Shah’s lawyer, Shabir Bhat told Kashmir Observer.
Bhat said, the wife of his client falsely accused her husband of domestic violence and then failed to prove it in the Court of law.
“She then approached the High court and Supreme Court regarding the matter but couldn’t prove the charges,” Bhat said.
The Court noted that it is the petitioner (wife) who dragged the respondent to this Court and then to other Courts of Law and in the process caused “serious prejudice” to the rights and interests of the respondent (husband) by resorting to false pleas and misusing the process of Courts.
The Court of small causes also recorded that the petitioner wife appears to have chosen a short-cut to withdraw from the proceedings to ensure that order dated 29 April, 2019 passed by the Court is not implemented and the respondent, who was restrained from entering his own house continues to be deprived of shared-household though it is admitted that both the parties have lived together as husband and wife for more than 30 years.
Abuse of Law
“This case is one such glaring example of abuse of process of law whether the AP has protracted the proceedings up to the maximum capacity of its elasticity and a domestic violence petition which is, at the initial stage, has been dragged up to the Supreme Court of India and the petitioner wife has ensured that the husband remains deprived of the shared-household even if, the same is owned by the respondent,” the Court observed.
It was recorded by the Court that it is quite obvious that the object of the Protection of Women (from Domestic Violence) Act, is to give protection to women from violence which takes place when they live in such domestic relations.
Court observed that this is to protect legitimate and genuine cases where the aggrieved person does not indulge in acts which defeat the purpose and object of the legislation.
Judge Qureshi pointed out that the Domestic Violence (DV) Act has not been enacted to cause harassment to the other spouse or to further aggravate the matrimonial discord to the extent of throwing the respondent out of his own house.
“This legislation cannot be allowed to be used in a manner that it spoils the lives of couples living peacefully,” the Court noted.
It was remarked that an act which is disproportionate to the level of protection can also be counterproductive and instead of giving protection to the legitimate cases of domestic violence, it may have the potential to destroy marital institutions.
“Therefore, it is important to sift and weigh cases to preserve the efficacy of the Domestic Violence Act for legitimate and genuine cases,” the Court noted.
On the facts of the case, the Court allowed the instant application seeking withdrawal of the instant petition U/S 12 of D.V.Act along with all other applications and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
However, the Court directed the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.10.00 lacs (ten lakh only) to the respondent who has been deprived of shelter and accommodation from his own house under the garb of order obtained in the instant petition.
Besides, it was also directed that both the parties are directed to restore the same position with respect to possession of the shared-household as existed on the date of the institution of instant petition.
“In case, petitioner fails to pay or does not pay the cost to the respondent within a period of one month from the date of this order the same shall be recovered in the manner prescribed for recovering land revenue,” the Court ruled.