The petition highlighted that Mugloo was married to Irfana in 2002, and two daughters were born out of the wedlock
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act (DV) Act can be established through past cohabitation, and present cohabitation is not a requirement for the same.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the court, affirmed the maintainability of a domestic violence case filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against Abdul Qayoom Mugloo (petitioner) by his wife Irfana (respondent no.1) and her daughters. The court noted that “it is clear that ‘domestic relationship’ would mean a relationship between two persons who are either living or have lived in past together in a shared household.”
The petition highlighted that Mugloo was married to Irfana in 2002, and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that Mugloo engaged in physical, economic and emotional abuse after their marriage was briefly dissolved and later resumed in 2011. Irfana also claimed that her husband mistreated her and their children, pressuring her to transfer property into his name and ultimately abandoning them without support.
Initially, the second additional Munsiff, Srinagar, ordered Mugloo to pay interim monetary compensation to Irfana and her daughters. This order was subsequently modified to grant compensation only to Irfana as the daughters were found to be major. The petitioner challenged this order arguing that the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act were not maintainable because he had long left his wife’s company and claimed that the case was an attempt to pressure him to withdraw a separate civil suit.
The court found that the definition of “domestic relationship” under the Act includes past cohabitation in a shared household. Despite the current separation, the Court concluded that a domestic relationship existed based on their previous cohabitation. Therefore, the trial magistrate’s decision to proceed with the case was deemed appropriate.
The court observed : “Merely because the petitioner and respondent No.1 are not presently living in a shared household, it cannot be stated that there is no domestic relationship between the two.”
The court upheld the decision of the appellate court, stating: “Once it is shown that the petitioner was in a domestic relationship with respondent No.1 at some point of time and respondent No.1 in her petition under Section 12 of the D.V Act has alleged acts of cruelty and domestic violence against the petitioner, it becomes a matter of trial as to whether such acts of cruelty have actually taken place.”
As a result, the court ruled that the case against the petitioner is maintainable under the Domestic Violence Act, and dismissed the petition finding no merit in it.
Catch the latest developments on Bangladesh Unrest with our live blog.
