LI Network
Published on: January 16, 2024 at 18:16 IST
In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court has clarified that the submission of a ‘Domestic Incident Report’ (DIR) by the ‘Protection Officer’ is not obligatory for granting relief to a distressed woman under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the Act’).
Justice Chittaranjan Dash, presiding over a Single Bench, interpreted the relevant provision of the Act, stating that while Section 12(1) necessitates the Magistrate to consider the Domestic Incident Report, it is not mandatory for issuing orders. The Court emphasized that the report should only be considered in instances where it has actually been filed.
The case in question involved OP No.2 initiating proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging physical and mental harassment by the petitioners in connection with a demand for dowry amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- or an expensive car.
The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the application was not in conformity with the statute, which requires adherence to Rule 6 of the PWDV Rules in Form No. II, along with an affidavit in Form No. III.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the DIR, mandated by Section 12(1) of the Act, was not received from the Protection Officer, rendering the application non-maintainable. However, the State’s counsel opposed this argument.
The Court deliberated on whether relief could be granted to OP No.2 under Section 12(1) in the absence of a DIR from the Protection Officer. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the Court underscored that the trial court has the authority to grant relief under the Act without waiting for the Protection Officer’s report, as any delay could defeat the purpose of providing interim maintenance to a person in need.
The Court also referenced a Jammu and Kashmir High Court case, highlighting that Section 12 of the DV Act does not mandate a Magistrate to obtain a domestic incident report before passing any order. Based on these precedents, the Court concluded that the quashing petition lacked merit, as the application under Section 12 could be considered even without a DIR. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
