1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is the husband. He has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge a notice issued by the second respondent, i.e. District Social Welfare Officer, Ramanathapuram, dated Nil (August, 2011) and signed by him on 23.08.2011 and seeks to set aside the same and with the consequential direction not to conduct any enquiry till the disposal of the proceedings initiated by him in the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram in HMOP No.38 of 2011.
2.When the matter came up on 27.9.2011, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to take notice for the second respondent District Social Welfare Officer. A private notice was also ordered to the first respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent has been served and represented by her counsel.
3.The case leading to filing of the present writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was married to the first respondent on 15.2.2009 at South Karaiyur, Ramanathapuram District. Subsequently, it was the allegation that the first respondent was frequently found quarreling with the petitioner and she was suffering from psychiatric problems. The petitioner was cheated by marrying her. When the petitioner suggested to take her to psychiatrist, she further got angry and left to her parents home on 20.03.2009. The petitioner had lived with her for only one month and that for the last two years, the first respondent has deserted the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had demanded divorce under Section 13(i)(ia) and 13(i)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said O.P was pending as HMOP No.38 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram.
4.In the meanwhile, the first respondent has filed a maintenance claim against the petitioner who was working as a Clerk in the Devasthanam stating that the petitioner had demanded dowry including gold jewelry. In the house of the petitioner, along with the petitioner and the first respondent, the petitioner's brother, two elder sisters and his mother were also living as a joint family. All of them joined together and threatened the first respondent. Though she was conceived, because of torture, it got aborted. They forced her to go to her parental house. After eight months, once again when she was taken by her parents to the petitioner's house, even then, they did not accept her. She was suffering without any means and hence she filed a maintenance claim before the same court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is also pending in M.C.No.10 of 2011.
5.The first respondent also gave a complaint on 6.7.2011 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for restoring her to her marital home. On receipt of the complaint, the second respondent had issued notices to the petitioner, his father, brother and sisters to appear for an enquiry into the complaint of the first respondent. Instead of attending the enquiry initiated by the second respondent, the petitioner has rushed to this court challenging the enquiry notice.
6.It was claimed by the petitioner that all persons were summoned to attend the hearing as many as on four occasions and that the last hearing date was on 29.08.2011. The second respondent was biased and one sided. Since the mater is pending before the competent court, the second respondent cannot conduct any enquiry.
7.This court is not inclined to entertain such a writ petition on a mere enquiry notice. The enquiry conducted by the second respondent is warranted in terms of Section 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The power includes to assist the Magistrate in the discharge of his functions and also to specifically do the powers listed out in the other sub sections. For the purpose of this case, Section 9(1)(b) and (c) are relevant, which read as follows:
(b)to make a domestic incident report to the Magistrate, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, upon receipt of a complaint of domestic violence and forward copies thereof to the police officer in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction domestic violence is alleged to have been committed and to the service providers in that area;
(c)to make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed to the Magistrate, if the aggrieved person so desires, claiming relief for issuance of a protection order;
8.The second respondent is the notified Protection Officer in terms of Section 2(n) read with section 8(1) of the Act. Section 9(2) prescribed as follows:
(2)The Protection Officer shall be under the control and supervision of the Magistrate, and shall perform the duties imposed on him by the Magistrate and the Government by, or under, this Act.
9.After making domestic incident report (DIR), the said Officer can also present an application seeking for relief. The petitioner cannot forestall the first respondent approaching the statutory forum to ventilate her grievance and in the forum provided under the Domestic Violence Act in addition to the other reliefs that are available to the party either before a Civil Court or Family Court or Criminal Court. Section 26 reads as follows: 26.Relief in other suits and legal proceedings.-(1)Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil Court, family Court or a criminal Court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this act.
(2)Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal Court. (3)In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.
10.Ultimately after completing due statutory procedures, if any order is passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Act also provides for an appeal to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person by the mere issuance of notice of enquiry as ordered by the second respondent Protection Officer. She was duty bound to enquire into all complaints by virtue of the Domestic Violence Act. Hence there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.