IRSHAD AHMAD ZARGAR Vs. SABEETA BASHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged order dtd. 10/2/2021 passed by Forest Magistrate (Sub Judge), Srinagar, in a complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for short "the Act of 2005").

(2.) It appears that the respondents have filed a petition under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 against the petitioners, which is pending before the Court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar. The petitioner No.1 happens to be the husband of respondent No.1 whereas respondents No.2 and 3 happen to be their children. In the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, the respondents have alleged that the petitioners have inflicted acts of domestic violence upon respondent No.1 and that they have been deprived of maintenance thereby causing economic abuses and insults upon them. The learned Magistrate, on the very first day of hearing, has passed the impugned order on an application filed by respondents under Sec. 23 of the Act of 2005, whereby they had sought exparte interim order against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate has, in the aforesaid application after recording his satisfaction that the petitioners have committed the acts of domestic violence against the respondents, directed the petitioner No.1 to provide one room, one kitchen and one bathroom in the shared household situated at Hazari Bazar, Rainawari, Srinagar, and to pay a monetary relief of Rs.5000.00each in favour of the respondents herein. The learned Magistrate has, however, disposed of the application on the very first day of hearing.

(3.) The main ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application for grant of interim relief has been disposed of by the learned Magistrate on the very first date of hearing without issuing notice to the petitioners and without hearing them. It has been contended that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, as such, the same deserves to be set aside. Besides this, the petitioners have also contended that the petitioner No.1 has divorced respondent No.1 by virtue of divorce deed dtd. 19/1/2021.