Date of Order: 7 November 2025
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh was confronted with a petition arising from proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In these proceedings the wife and her minor child had sought protection and monetary relief. The application named the husband and two of his relatives as respondents. The trial Magistrate granted interim relief in favour of the wife and child. The husband and the relatives challenged the proceedings before the High Court, claiming that the relatives had been improperly impleaded despite the absence of any specific allegations against them.
The petitioners argued that the allegations in the DV application were vague and general and failed to attribute any individual acts of domestic violence to the relatives. They maintained that naming extended family members without a prima facie case against them amounted to misuse of the protective legislation. They further contended that once process had been issued the Magistrate could not revisit or revoke the orders in a manner similar to a criminal prosecution. The respondents did not appear before the High Court.
The High Court observed that proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not equivalent to criminal prosecution. The purpose of the DV Act is to provide remedial and protective relief rather than to launch penal proceedings from the outset. The Court held that because of this remedial character, a Magistrate retains the power after receiving responses to revoke summons or drop proceedings against any respondent if it becomes clear that no prima facie case exists against them. The procedural bars that prevent recall of process or interim orders in criminal cases do not apply to DV-Act proceedings. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022) which recognises that a notice under Section 12 may invite a response and does not automatically equate to criminal prosecution.
The High Court did not quash the proceedings in their entirety. It granted the petitioners liberty to approach the trial Magistrate with an application seeking to drop proceedings against respondents against whom no case is made out. The Magistrate was directed to consider and decide such an application expeditiously. Until such decision is made, proceedings against the relatives along with interim orders remain stayed.
Written by Adv. Aiswarya Krishnan
