Whether the application under sec.12, should be filed in Form-II as prescribed under Rule 6(1) of the Rules and verified in the prescribed manner with out any modification ? - No whether calling and according consideration to Domestic Incident Report of a Protection Officer or the Service Provider is sine qua non for passing an order, interim or final, on an application under section 12(1) of the Act? - No -2015 J & K ( 2014) msklawreports



whether calling and according consideration to Domestic Incident Report of a Protection Officer or the Service Provider is sine qua non for passing an order, interim or final, on an application under section 12(1) of the Act?
A comparative reading of sections 4, 9 and 10 of the Act and Rules 4 and 8 of the Rules on one hand and section 12 of the Act on the other would make it clear that giving of information about domestic violence to the Protection Officer under section 4 or to Service Provider under section10 and making an application seeking relief under section 12(1) or two different and independent aspects of the Act. Making an application under section 12(1) to the Magistrate is no way linked with or dependent upon providing information to the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. To say the other way, giving information to Protection Officer or Service Provider and their report to the Magistrate in no way can be taken as a sine qua non for making an application under section 12(1) to the Magistrate. It is open to an aggrieved person to straightway make an application to the Magistrate under section 12(1) seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. The only interpretation that can be given to the proviso to section 12(1) of the Act is that the Magistrate before passing any order on the application of the aggrieved person will have to accord consideration to a Domestic Incident Report of a Protection Officer or a report of a Service Provider, if such a report has been received by the Magistrate. Key to such interpretation seem to have been made available in the proviso itself by use of word any . Proviso does not mandate calling for a report from a Protection Officer or Service Provider but refers to any report received from a Protection Officer or Service Provider, which, however, would be available only in a case where information to the Protection Officer or a Service Provider about an act of domestic violence had been given by the aggrieved person himself or by any person .

Whether the application under sec.12, should be filed in Form-II as prescribed under Rule 6(1) of the Rules and verified in the prescribed manner with out any modification ?
 Rule 6(1) reads as under: 6. Applications to the Magistrate.- (1) Every application of the aggrieved person under section 12 of the Act shall be in Form II or as nearly as possible thereto.
On its plain reading, it would be clear Rule 6(1) does not make it mandatory for the applicant to prepare an application under section 12(1) of the Act in Form II only. 
The Rule provides also that it may be as nearly as possible to Form-II. 
Form-II on its reading would show that it mainly provides for giving the name of the person (aggrieved person/Protection Officer/any other person on behalf of aggrieved person) who makes the application and details about the order(s) sought from the Magistrate, that is, Protection Order under section 18/Residence Order under section 19/ Monetary Reliefs under section 20/ Custody Order under section 21/Compensation Order under section.
 It may be stated in this regard that the Act is a welfare legislation to provide for effective protection of rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution, who were victims of domestic violence. A relief sought under the Act will not be defeated merely on technical defects like application having not been filed in prescribed form unless the application does not convey or make out what is required and sufficient for grant of the relief. - 2015 J & K ( 2014) msklawreports

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.