[Domestic Violence Act] Only 'aggrieved person' can file plea before Magistrate under Section 12: Gauhati High Court

The Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court on Wednesday held that a magistrate erred in granting relief to a respondent who was not an aggrieved party in a case filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Domestic Violence Act) [Tatung Jamoh v. Yatem Ering Jamoh]..In doing so, Justice Robin Phukan upheld a Sessions Judge's order that set aside the said magistrate's order."The ld. Sessions Judge has rightly held that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant any relief under this section to the revisionist Shri Tatung Jamoh, curtailing the right of the ‘aggrieved person’," the Court held..The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Congress MLA from Arunachal Pradesh Tatung Jamoh against a Sessions Court's order that granted his wife the right to keep collecting rent from their apartment block in Itanagar by overruling the magistrate, which had granted the right for the same to the MLA.The Judicial Magistrate First Class had passed the order in a plea filed by the aggrieved wife, Yatem Jamoh, seeking relief and protection from dispossession under various provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. This, after a District Judge had dismissed her plea for divorce.The magistrate granted the protection sought, but held that the sole right to collect rent from the apartment will rest with the MLA/husband and that these overall directives "will remain in force till the absolute ownership" of the property is decided.Aggrieved by this order, Yatem moved the Sessions Court, which set aside the magistrate order and restored her right to collect the rent. The Sessions Judge had held,"I have no hesitation to hold that under this Act only aggrieved person can file application under Section 12 of the Act. It is also clearly seen that Magistrate can either grant or reject the relief sought for under this Act, but no where I finds that the Magistrate can pass any order giving relief to the respondent which is not sought for by the aggrieved person...".Tatung then approached the High Court in appeal, asking it to set it aside the Sessions Court order on the ground that it was legally incorrect. Dismissing the petition, the High Court said that it found merit in the observations and the Sessions Court order.Justice Phukan added that in terms of deciding the absolute right to collect rent from their apartment, the magistrate had far exceeded its jurisdiction into an arena which otherwise belongs to a civil court.The Court relied on Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, which makes it clear that an application claiming relief can be preferred only by an "aggrieved person" as defined under Section 2, and not the respondent. In the case at hand, the wife was the "aggrieved person" and the husband was the respondent, Justice Phukan observed..Advocate B Picha appeared for Tatung Jamoh, while advocate P Taffo represented Yatem Jamoh..[Read Judgment]