SHAMBHU PRASAD SINGH Vs. MANJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 31st May, 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case No. 934/2003 titled as 'Manjari Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh' issuing notice to the Petitioner on a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short D.V. Act) without calling for a report from the Protection Officer and the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th August, 2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that on an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, no notice could have been issued to the Petitioner/ husband of the complainant without calling domestic inspection report from the Protection Officer as mandated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Reference is made to Sections 4, 5 & 12 of the D.V. Act and Rules 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (in short 'D.V. Rules'). It is contended that filing of form II is essential along with an application under Section 6 of the Act which specifically provides that it should be accompanied by the report of the Protection Officer. The report of Protection Officer is mandatory before issuance of notice as held in Bhupender Singh Mehra & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.,2010 4 JCC(Del) 2939. Thus, impugned orders be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that Section 12 of the D.V. Act gives liberty to the complainant to apply directly to the Court or through the Protection Officer. Further Section 23 permits passing of ex-parte orders. The forms provided under the D.V. Rules 6(1 & 2) are not mandatory in nature. Distinguishing the decision of this Court in Bhupender Singh Mehra, it is contended that in the said case the report of the Protection Officer was necessary as it was not clear whether the Petitioners therein were in domestic relationship. In the present case only the husband has been made as a Respondent in the application under Section 12 and there is no dispute to his being in domestic relationship.