Appellate Court's Order Granting Monetary Assistance and Accommodation Maintained; Trial Magistrate's Analysis Criticized
Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir - In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the interim relief granted to Mst Adfara Rehman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The decision came in the case of Rouf Ahmad Mir and Others versus Mst Adfara Rehman, where the aggrieved person sought protection and maintenance following allegations of domestic violence.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar, dismissed the petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, dated November 12, 2025. This order had overturned the previous decision by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which dismissed Adfara Rehman's application under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act.
The case presented by Adfara Rehman alleged that she faced cruel treatment and domestic violence from her husband, Rouf Ahmad Mir, and her father-in-law. The trial Magistrate initially dismissed her application, pointing out inconsistencies in her statements and the non-filing of an affidavit regarding assets and liabilities.
Justice Dhar criticized the trial Magistrate's meticulous analysis of minor inconsistencies, emphasizing that at the interim stage, the standard of proof requires only prima facie satisfaction of the court regarding the existence of a domestic relationship and the likelihood of domestic violence. The High Court endorsed the Appellate Court's observation that such detailed examination was unwarranted at the interim stage.
Furthermore, the High Court addressed the issue of non-filing of an affidavit concerning assets and liabilities. It upheld the Appellate Court's stance that failing to file such an affidavit does not extinguish the right to claim maintenance or protection under the Domestic Violence Act. The appellate order required Rouf Ahmad Mir to pay Rs. 5,000 per month as interim monetary assistance and provide suitable residential accommodation or Rs. 2,500 monthly as rent to Adfara Rehman.
The judgment also touched upon a divorce deed executed by Rouf Ahmad Mir after the trial Magistrate's order. Justice Dhar refrained from commenting on its impact, noting that the trial court should decide whether the divorce extinguishes Adfara Rehman's rights under the Domestic Violence Act during the final disposal of the petition.
The High Court's decision reinforces the legal principle that interim relief under the Domestic Violence Act should be granted based on prima facie evidence, without delving into detailed scrutiny of the evidence at this stage. The judgment is seen as a step towards safeguarding the rights of aggrieved persons seeking protection from domestic violence.
Bottom line:-
Domestic Violence Act - Interim relief under Section 23 - Standard of proof for interim relief under the DV Act is prima facie satisfaction - Detailed examination of evidence at interim stage is unwarranted.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 12, 23, 29
Rouf Ahmad Mir v. Mst Adfara Rehman, (Jammu And Kashmir)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc id # 2897971
