Domestic Violence Cases: J&K&L High Court Issues Certain Guidelines In Respect Of Protection Officers Domain

CAUSE TITLE:
Neelofar Rasool Vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad Ahangar And Others

DATE OF ORDER:
25 May, 2022

JUDGE(S):
The Honourable Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani

PARTIES:
Petitioner(s): Neelofar Rasool
Respondent(s): Imtiyaz Ahmad Ahangar and others

SUBJECT

The petitioner with her two brothers as defendants and in collusion with his father, filed a civil suit involving the shared household, ostensibly to overturn the Magistrate's directions/orders without applying his own interpretation.

OVERVIEW

• The petitioner had filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act against respondent No. 1 (husband), and the Trial Court had issued an order allowing the petitioner to live in the shared household without interference and ordering respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the petitioner's husband and brother-in-law, respectively) to refrain from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner.

ISSUE RAISED

• What are the guidelines in respect of the Protection Officer(s) under the DV Act?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER

• The petitioner claimed that the protection officer disobeyed the Trial Court's orders and purposefully avoided carrying them out by convening a parallel court to consider whether the petitioner should be permitted to live in the shared household or not. Furthermore, the officer’s “casual and lackadaisical approach" in carrying out the orders delayed it thereby compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• The Protection Officer in this case had miserably failed to carry out the directions of the Magistrate. Therefore, the Court laid down certain guidelines in respect of the Protection Officer(s).

1. Once a Magistrate is seized of a domestic violence matter, it is neither the obligation nor the domain of the Protection Officer to engage in any mediation or conciliation.
2. A Protection Officer has a legal obligation to assist the Magistrate in carrying out his responsibilities under the DV Act, including carrying out directions/orders issued by the Magistrate without forming his own interpretations. If you have any doubts, get clarification from the concerned Magistrate.
3. A selected Protection Officer must be promptly accessible to an aggrieved person in case the aggrieved person requires quick action.
4. The Government should advise a nominated Protection Officer by providing appropriate training on the provisions of the DV Act and how to apply them so that the Act's purpose and objectives are successfully met and attained.
5. When granting orders under the DV Act, the magistrate shall, to the extent possible, secure the attendance of the concerned Protection Officer and ensure that the Protection Officer understands the nature of the order and how it will be carried out.

CONCLUSION

Within one week of filing the petition in High Court, the petitioner was allowed possession of the shared household, and she was also given custody of her minor child and paid arrears of maintenance in the High Court itself.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement