Sunday, the Srinagar JMIC Court has imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh on the wife for falsely accusing the husband of ‘domestic violence’.
The matter reached before the Ld JMIC/Special M.M. PT&E Srinagar by the order in December 2021 of Hon’ble High Court of J&K And Ladakh at Srinagar.
In the matter, the woman filed an application seeking withdrawal of the petition U/S 12 of D.V.Act for personal reasons unconditionally. However, the respondent has filed detailed objections to the application.
The respondent said that he constructed the house out of his hard earned money has become homeless. He alleged that he was thrown out of his own residential house and then used the police agency to further harass him. However in April 2019, the Hon’ble Court passed an order asking the wife to provide two rooms to husband and also asked to live in a cordial and friendly relation.
Another order passed in March 2020, upon the application filed to “provide a Scheme for implementation of the Court order”. In the said order, the Hon’ble Court accordingly directed the SHO to implement the order and further directed for installation of CCTV camera in lobbies and compound.
The respondent-husband further submitted objections to withdrawal application:
He stated that the applicant has filed withdrawal application with ‘mala-fides’ intentions, that the petitioner has dispossessed him from his own house and she is not following the court order, so she want to avoid the implementation of the order.
It was further stated that, this is serious prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondent, on the gound that he was dragged to the court and out of his house. Also stated that, withdrawal at this stage is not legally tenable.
“It is the submission of the respondent that the present case is the fit case in which action under law is warranted against the petitioner for not only misusing the law to the disadvantage of the respondent but also the orders of this Hon’ble Court.”
He also pointed out that, withdrawal indicates towards the “vexatious litigation” initiated by the petitioner against the respondent. He further pleaded to deal with heavy hands.
“It is in the interest of the Constitutional Scheme of the Country that the litigants who take resort to frivolous and vexatious litigation need to be dealt with heavy hands and nobody shall be allowed to misuse the law and process of courts.”
The Court:
The court observed that the woman have chosen short-cut of withdrawal to avoid the implementation of the order and said that the petioner woman want to shake the foundation of the orders.
“Even if, the reasons are not disclosed but the facts of the instant matter speak for themselves and clearly demonstrate that the AP wants to shake the foundation of these orders which have been passed since 29.04.2019 by the court of Ld PT&E as well as Hon’ble Appellate Courts, Hon’ble High Court of J&K And Ladakh and ultimately, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
The court said the matter as an “example of abuse of process 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 upto Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the AP has ensured that the respondent remains deprived of the shared-household even if, the same is owned by the respondent.”
The court however did not commented on whether by depriving the respondent-husband from his respondece would have tramautized the respondent or would have satisfied the grievances of the petioner.
“This court does not want to comment upon as to whether by depriving the respondent/husband who is the owner of the shared-household it would have tramautized the respondent or would have satisfied the grievances of the AP.”
The court futher stated that;
“Does it mean that the Domestic Violence, has ceased to perpetuate or recurr and so, the AP wants to withdraw from the instant petition just to deprive the respondent from the benefits of the Order…”
The court stated that DV Act is to protect genuine cases.
“This is to protect legitimate and genuine cases where the aggrieved person does not indulge in acts which defeats the purpose and object of the legislation.“
The court stated that DV Act has not enacted to harass men.
“Domestic Violence 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 life of couples living peacefully.”
The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on women, and also directed to restore the same position as it was existed on the date of institution of the petition.