reporter:
Last updated:
The court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision.
The petition highlights that Mugloo married Irfana in 2002 and had two daughters born out of wedlock
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that domestic relations under the Domestic Violence Act (DV) can be established through past cohabitation, while current cohabitation does not constitute a requirement for such a relationship.
Judge Sanjay Dhar of the presiding court confirmed that Abdul Qayoom Mugloo’s wife Irfana (accused No. 1) and her daughter were protected under the Protection The domestic violence case filed against Abdul Qayoum Mulglu (the complainant) under Section 12 of the Women’s Freedom from Domestic Violence Act is maintainable. The court noted that “it is clear that a 'family relationship' means a relationship between two persons who are or were living together in a joint household.”
The petition highlights that Mugloo married Irfana in 2002 and had two daughters born out of wedlock. After their marriage briefly dissolved and then resumed in 2011, Mugloo allegedly engaged in physical, financial and emotional abuse. and eventually abandoned them without their knowledge.
Initially, the second Monshiv Srinagar ordered Mulgru to pay temporary monetary compensation to Irfana and her daughters. The order was later modified to provide compensation only to Irfana after it was discovered that the daughters were very old. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were not maintainable as he had long since left his wife's company, and claimed that the case was an attempt to force him to withdraw a separate civil suit.
The court held that the definition of “domestic relationship” in the Act includes past cohabitation relationships within the same household. Despite the current separation, the court concluded that a domestic relationship existed based on their previous cohabitation relationship. The trial judge's decision to proceed with the case was therefore considered appropriate.
The court held: “Just because the plaintiff and respondent No. 1 do not currently live in the same household, it does not mean that there is no family relationship between the two.”
The court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal stating: “Once it is proved that the complainant had a domestic relationship with the respondent no. 1 at some point of time and in his petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the respondent no. Where abuse and domestic violence are alleged, then whether such abuse actually occurred becomes a question at trial.
As a result, the court ruled that the case against the petitioner was maintainable under the Domestic Violence Act and dismissed the petition finding that there was no legal basis.
Stay up to date on the latest unrest in Bangladesh with our live blog.
