On the last day of this sunny April, I got an URL [a link to a website] in my WhatsApp number from my colleague. As usual, out of curiosity, I clicked on the link and it took me to a webpage of a portal. The webpage contain an extract of the Order delivered by the High Court Judge using his inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.]. After I read the Order, not only I shocked but I was more sympathetic with the Judge for his wisdom on the subject.

As I am submissive to my Advocate Profession and respect to the Courts of this land – in which the last man of this nation has kept unshakable confidence and trust, according to me, not for interpretation of law but for its justice. Because, justice manier times has natural shade than the rigid face of the law, so I decided not to name the Judge.

Otherwise, I have no fear of anything because Advocate in me taught – only a fair criticism of adverse Order make my case winnable in the Appeal.

I being a practicing Advocate, an all-rounder, have handled so far several matrimonial cases in my career. One thing that always made me wonder, my views differ from others in respect to interpretation of many of the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and when I was pondering over writing a commentary on the DV Act, incidentally, this particular Order ignited in me an Author to write this book, My Commentary on Domestic Violence Act. Otherwise, by that time, I have authored two other books [Over 100 FAQs in Criminal Courts Practice and Understanding Code of Criminal Procedure in Simple Terms] and those are kept ready for print. 

Before I open up the subject for discussion, I would brief you on the Order of the High Court that compelled me or shook my senses to write My Commentary on Domestic Violence Act. The fact of the case was;

The Petitioner Husband approached the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash a DV Complaint filed by the Wife against him and three of his family members in a Magistrate Court.

The Wife in her Complaint before the Magistrate prayed that she be given an accommodation and compensation in addition to protection from her in-laws i.e. three other co-Respondents. The Husband aggrieved over such Complaint, pending trial, approached the High Court to quash her Complaint.

Husband’s argument before the High Court was that the Wife had left him about 3 years ago, therefore her DV Complaint barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and she cannot claim any relief from him. He further argued that under Sections 28 and 32 read with Rule 15[6] of DV Act, Wife’s Complaint in the Magistrate Court has no acceptability and lost its relevance to deal by that Court for time barred and he thus prayed for its quash. He referred a Judgment of another High Court in support of his argument. The Judge has allowed Husband’s Petition and thus ordered quash of Wife’s DV case filed in the Magistrate Court.

In his Order, the Judge said since the Wife after leaving her matrimonial house conducted many proceedings and she filed her DV Complaint about 3 years later, hence the Citation of another High Court [similar to this case in hand] submitted by the Petitioner Husband with regard to limitation applies in this case too. The Judge finally said, even the DV case is not sustainable against the Husband and he ordered quashing of the Complaint filed by the Wife.

The Appellate Court by denouncing Wife’s prayer for residential rights and compensation against the first Petitioner Husband and even denying her a protection order from her in-laws only on the strength of limitation was not only legally untenable but by relieving the Petitioner Husband from the DV case is travesty of justice, according to my understanding of the DV Act.

According to me, the Legislative intent with regard to The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Women must be protected of her rights till her demise. Otherwise, the Act mostly deals with the remedy and reliefs than the punishment. Even the trial Court if requires to remand the Husband into judicial custody only for non-compliance of its Order, otherwise, it can never do without having it moved with a Petition to enforce its Order. This may be an Interim Maintenance Order or Permanent Alimony, Residential Order or Protection Order or Custody of a Child Order. If DV case is barred by limitation then the Act itself becomes redundant.

So in the case in hand, the Appellate Court failed to understand the Legislative intent of the DV Act, it denied the rights of a woman who sought to have remedy [not punishment] and relief under the Act. Otherwise, the Appellate Court by its assertion “proceedings conducted by the Wife” misunderstood the concept of Section 498-A of IPC vis-à-vis the DV Act. The question automatically creeps on our mind can’t a Wife, who knocked the door of the Court against dowry harassment committed by her Husband and her in-laws, exercise her rights to get remedy and relief under the DV Act?

Yes, the Wife has absolute rights to seek punishment against her Husband and in-laws who committed cruelty towards her seeking dowry under Indian Penal Code. And yet, she can institute a Complaint either before a Protection Officer or in a Magistrate Court and seek relief for her day today’s survival. Nowhere the law restricts the Wife from seeking such reliefs this is even when her Husband is in Jail, that’s the spirit of the Legislative intent behind the DV Act. In the successive Chapters of this Commentary, I would discuss the same elaborately.      

Moving back on the subject, lest forget about what Citations from the High Court and Supreme Court says, but the provisions in DV Act, according to me shows no ambiguity of anything or on anything.

The relief and remedy sought by the Wife falls under the ambit of Welfare Legislation, hence natural justice has to supersede the Law of Limitation. Plainly speaking, it is a matter of commonsense for the Court to decide on the subject “Domestic Violence” because commission of domestic violence, as alleged by the Wife, at the first instance, not necessarily taken place in a banquet hall before the presence of tens of people, the act [violence] may have had commissioned first within the four-wall enclosure then erupted on to the hall then on to the street and then comes to the Court. So the domestic violence before reaching the Court Doors might have crossed at least two of these stages, in such case where would the Court keep bar on limitation. … [Part 2] https://faqsonlaw.in/2020/07/22/how-dv-act-differspart-2/