HC CAN’T GRANT DIVORCE ON IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE – DIVORCE DECREE SET ASIDE – SCI
December 5, 2025
Divorce Lawyer Supertech Eco Village 1, 2, and 3
December 9, 2025PROCEEDINGS U/S 12 DV ACT NOT EQUIVALENT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION MAGISTRATE CAN DROP PROCEEDINGS – HC SB JKL
Name of the Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
The case Reyaz Ahmad Lone & Ors. v. Naziya Hassan & Anr. (2025) was decided by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar on 07 November 2025. The petitioners—husband (Petitioner No. 1) and his relatives (Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3)—challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). They also challenged the Magistrate’s order directing Petitioner No. 1 to pay ₹8,000 per month to the wife (Respondent No. 1), ₹4,000 per month to the child (Respondent No. 2), and ₹3,000 per month as rental compensation.
Background of the Dispute
Respondent No. 1 (wife) married Petitioner No. 1 on 30 August 2021 and gave birth to a daughter (Respondent No. 2). She filed a petition under Section 12 DV Act alleging domestic violence, harassment, and cruelty by the husband and his family members. The Magistrate issued notice and interim monetary compensation orders against the petitioners.
Grounds for Challenge
The petitioners approached the High Court arguing:
-
Vague and non-specific allegations were made against them.
-
Entire family was roped in maliciously to pressurize the husband.
-
The Magistrate passed the impugned order mechanically, without applying judicial mind.
-
The order lacked satisfaction under Section 18 DV Act, which deals with protection orders.
-
The proceedings were vexatious and abusive and deserved to be quashed.
Key Legal Question
Whether proceedings under Section 12 DV Act are equivalent to criminal prosecution and whether the Magistrate has the power to recall summons, drop proceedings, or modify interim orders.
Court’s Findings
The High Court held that proceedings under Section 12 DV Act are not criminal prosecutions in the strict sense. They are remedial in nature, meant to secure protection and relief for aggrieved women.
The Court emphasized:
-
Issuing notice under Section 12 DV Act is not the same as issuing process in a criminal case.
-
The Magistrate has wide power to seek response, evaluate the allegations, and then decide whether to proceed.
-
After considering the reply from husband and relatives, the Magistrate may:
-
Revoke the earlier summons,
-
Drop proceedings against some or all parties,
-
Recall interim monetary orders, if allegations are unsubstantiated.
-
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022 SCC OnLine SC 446), where it was clarified that Section 12 notice is only to obtain a response and Adalat Prasad principles (regarding bar on recalling process) do not apply at this preliminary stage.
Decision of the High Court
The Court did not quash the DV proceedings outright. Instead, it held that:
-
The petitioners can file an application before the trial Magistrate seeking dropping of proceedings.
-
The Magistrate must consider this application and pass a reasoned order within one month.
-
As Petitioners No. 2 & 3 (relatives) may have been unnecessarily implicated, proceedings against them will remain stayed until the Magistrate decides the application—provided the petitioners file it within 10 days.
Conclusion
The High Court reaffirmed that Section 12 DV Act is not equivalent to criminal prosecution. Magistrates have the authority to drop proceedings or modify orders upon receiving the respondents’ version. The petition was disposed of with directions preserving the right of the petitioners to seek relief before the Magistrate.
