AITHAPPA POOJARY Vs. PROTECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.3 filed a complaint before respondent No.1, alleging domestic violence against the petitioners herein. In response, the 1st respondent issued an impugned notice, calling upon the petitioners to participate in the enquiry. Taking exception to this notice, the petitioners have filed this petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the duties of the 1st respondent are enumerated in Sec. 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). According to the learned counsel, there is no provision in the Act that authorizes the 1st respondent to issue a notice to the petitioners to participate in an enquiry to determine the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent lacks legal authority and is not sustainable in law.

(3.) In contrast, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that to ascertain the participation and involvement of the petitioners in the allegations made in the complaint, the 1st respondent submitted a report to the jurisdictional court. The impugned notice was issued under the authority granted by Sec. 9 of the Act, and hence, it cannot be said to lack legal authority.