Srinagar, Dec 20: A court here has directed a woman to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to her husband for misusing the Domestic Violence (DV) Act against him.
After hearing both the parties on the application submitted by petitioner, seeking withdrawal of her petition filed under DV Act, the Court of Judge Small Causes, Srinagar, presided over by Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi, observed that the case is one of the glaring examples of “abuse of process of law.”
The Court issued directions after the petitioner (wife) sought withdrawal of her petition and respondent (husband) objected to it.
“This case is one such glaring example of abuse of process of law where the petitioner 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 Supreme Court. The petitioner has ensured that the respondent (husband) remains deprived of the shared-household even if, the same is owned by the respondent,” the Court observed.
Court further observed that petitioner has removed the respondent from the residential house under the garb of Court order passed in DV Act petition filed by her.
“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 life of couples living peacefully,” Court said.
It added 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 institution.”
“Therefore, it is important to sift and weigh cases to preserve the efficacy of DV Act for legitimate and genuine cases.”
Court said that it does not debar the petitioner from withdrawing the instant petition but however, the court has to be conscious of the fact that after putting the respondent to trial not only before this court but before Appellate Courts, High Court and the Supreme Court, the petitioner has withdrawn from the proceedings and therefore, the other-side has to be compensated for the pain and agony and inconvenience including cost of the litigations suffered.
“Besides, it is imperative to restore the position of the shared-household as it existed on the date of institution of this case i.e, February 29, 2019,” Court said.
It added that petitioner has withdrawn from the proceedings and therefore, the husband has to be compensated for the pain and agony and inconvenience including cost of the litigations suffered by him.
“This court allows the instant application seeking withdrawal of the instant petition of DV Act along with all other applications and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.10 lakh 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,” Court said.
“Besides, 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,” Court added.
It further directed that in case the 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.