Before the Hon’ble Court of Judicial Magistrate ( Sub judge)

1st Class, Kupwara

In the case of:

Parveena Begum
Vs
Mohammad Muzaffar Lone & ORS

In the matter of:

Objections on behalf of respondents in the above titled

petition

May it please the Hon’ble Court !

The objections are respectfully submitted as under:

1. That the above titled petition along-with all the connected miscellaneous
applications, being misconceived merits outright rejection. That the
petition under DV Act is an after thought which has bee. Filed long after
filing petition under section 125 crpc with a sole intention to settle
scores with the respondents and to harass them. It’s further submitted
that since the petitioner and respondent have mutually put an end to their
relationship & are residing separately since 20 as such the petition in
hand deserves outright dismissal.
2. That the petitioner and the respondent number 01 have been residing
separately from each other since last as such the petition in hand
is not maintainable & is hopelessly time barred which deserves
dismissal.
3. That the brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner and
respondent number 01 were married in the year 2015 and the relation
between the parties was cordial and functional but after few months of
marriage the petitioner started to show her true colours by engaging in a
conduct unfavourable to the respondents causing great psychological
trauma to respondents by resorting to incessant unilateral verbal assault
targeting the respondent number 01 & his family members. .That the
respondent number 01 tried his best to crease out the differences but the
petitioner remained adamant with her demand to reside separately from
the parents of the respondent number 01 which demand was finally
accepted by the respondent number 01 for the reason that the respondent
number 01 was sincere in giving seccond chance to relationship but to
the misfortune of the respondent number 01 the petitioner continued with
her quarrelsome and deceitful behaviour.
 That once all the endeavours and efforts to sort out the
differences amicably failed , the parties mutually decided to honourably
put an end to their relationship through a mutually agreed and non
coercive divorce. That the mutual divorce was effected strictly in
accordance with rules of shariah and Muslim personal law which was
reduced to writing . The said divorce has finalised and already taken
effect with the consent and authority of petitioner along with terms and
conditions laid therein . The mutual divorce was agreed and signed by
the petitioner without duress in presence of witnesses including her
father. The copy of the divorce is annexed herewith .

4. That it is impermissible to the cognizance, if the very format of the

complaint/application as prescribed under the domestic violence Act is
not complied with or is incorrect and against the law & the complaint
filed by the petitioner has not been filed in accordance with the law as
such deserves dismissal.
5. That the petitioner has not approached the Protection Officer or any
Service Provider & there is no Domestic incident report in the matter
therefore, the cognizance of the complaint/application without there
being the domestic incident report, which is a sine qua non before taking
cognizance/passing order in the application, is not legally permissible.
The Domestic Incident Report, as per section 2(e) means a report made
in the prescribed form on the receipt of the complaint of domestic
violence from an aggrieved person and under section 9 of the Act it is the
duty of the Protection Officer to make a domestic incident report to the
Magistrate besides other functions. That apt to submit here that a
domestic violence application under Section 12 has to be in consonance
with Rule 6 of the Rules 2011, which inter alia provide that every
application of the aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Act shall be
in Form II or as nearly as possible thereto. Form II prescribed that the
application has to be accompanied with a Domestic Incident Report as
per its column 1. Therefore, in the absence of the DIR (Domestic
Incident Report) the complaint cannot be filed and would be a breach of
the Rules.
6. That the petitioner has also filed a separate petition under Section 125
CrPC before the Hon’ble Court of MUnsiff, JMIC, Kupwara, therefore
once the issue of maintenance has been raked up under section 125 CrPC
also, then resort to this petition is no more than a sheer abuse of the
process of law. Furthermore the petitioner and respondent number 01
have mutually dissolved their relationship after putting all the
controversies at rest and have mutually agreed to reside separately as
such filing the instant complaint makes no sense & Resultantly deserves
dismissal. The contents made in the petition under section 125 croc and
 the instant petition are contradictory which speaks volumes about the
veracity of the petition in hand .
7. That the petitioner, besides other relief has also prayed for separate
shelter, though law is unambiguous and undisputed on the point that
once the parties have ceased to be husband and wife in such case there is
no question of sharing of household with the respondent number
01.Besides that the petitioner has no right to seek shelter in the house
belonging to the parents of the respondent number 01 against the consent
and will of the of the parents of the respondent number 01.
8. That all the incidents of domestic violence mentioned in the complaint
are nothing more than bunch of white naked lies . The allegations
levelled against the respondents are self conceived and are vehemently
denied in toto.
9. That the respondents reserves the right to project other grounds for
dismissal of complaint during the proceedings of the trial off course with
the permission of the honble court.

IN THESE PREMISES, Its therefore prayed before

this honble court that in acceptance of the factual and legal averments
made in the objections , the complaint filed by the petitioner against the
respondents may be dismissed & the petitioner may be saddled with
costs for frivolous and malicious prosecution of the respondents.
The relief sought is in accordance with law.

Respondents through Counsel

Bilal Malik ( Advocate ) & Associates