[Read Part 1 and 2for understanding of this subject]

The most devastating fact is that the same Chapter on Limitation in Cr.P.C. there is a Section with a headnote “extension of period of limitation in certain cases,” yes, I am referring Section 473 of Cr.P.C. and I reproduce below the extracts of the same for the readers to readily understand where I am deriving the logic limitation does not apply in DV Case.

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.”

So for a layman’s understanding – There is no restriction to hear the case by any Courts even there is expiry of Period of Limitation. Provided, the Court which hears the case is satisfied that the delay was properly explained and it was necessary in the interest of justice to conduct proceedings.

Whether it was explained in the Petition about the delay or not, no importance! But the Court which hears the Petition for the first time, if it satisfied with the correctness and legality of the provision, then it should see only the Petitioner’s necessary – whether such Petition is deserved to be taken it up further proceedings or not. Not beyond that.

So where is the abusement of law by the Magistrate Court in this case? Or for that where is ends of justice is breached by the lower Court? So that the High Court jumped into it with its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quashed the DV case. 

Interestingly, in another case, in which the Husband’s Parents and Sister, prayed for Quash of a DV case filed by the Wife in a Magistrate Court, kept their defence as they were not residing together with her and they called it was a false case and imposed on them frivolously hence her case be quashed. The fact was that the Judge without giving any thoughts on the case before him, simply allowed the Petition, and thus the in-laws name be removed from the case.

Now what does this case particularly make me understand is that, a DV case against in-laws be sustainable only when the Wife residing together with her in-laws under one roof, otherwise, it is not. Interestingly, there are manier similar orders were passed by various High Courts [though I have not come across any such orders from the Supreme Court] and according to me they are wrong. Otherwise, I think the Legislative intent was not the way as majority of our Courts think.

Before I reasons out why the Courts are wrong in such domain, let me explain you the types of domestic violence. Our Lawmakers before passing of the Bill on Domestic Violence, they pondered over various aspects contributing to domestic violence and according to them, the domestic violence “to include actual abuse or threat or abuse that is physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic.”

It is understandable that Wife could not be subjected to physical or sexual harassment by the in-laws unless she resides under one roof with them. But what about other form of violence such as verbal and emotional? Can’t these be committed on the Wife if she stays away [from her in-laws] elsewhere in this World? No one dispute my thought on this, in today’s Communication World, are the wives are not exposed to verbal and emotional abusement from their in-laws over phone? Does this culture is acceptable in Law? The answer is NO.

According to me, it is not necessary that the aggrieved Wife would reside with her in-laws for commission of domestic violence, such concept is utterly wrong and against the spirit and essence of the DV Act. Unfortunately, we could see High Courts are just blindly quashing DV Complaints favouring in-laws on the grounds that the Wife was not living with them. Such orders are mechanical per se does not go with the legislative intent.

It is now seen in the Magistrate Courts and in the Protection Officers offices as they insist the aggrieved women to limit the number of Co-Respondent to 1 or maximum 2 i.e. the Husband plus either any of his Parents [Mother or Father or to the max both] but no others. Manier times it was found that sister-in-law are the real instigator and problematic to the happy life of the Wife and Husband. Yet based on the Citations, the PO and the Magistrates are literally not happy to take cognizance of offence against all those who are arrayed as co-Respondents. Otherwise, when an inquiry is conducted by the PO under the instructions from the Magistrate she puts a brake on the Complaint to limit the number of Respondents. In couple of cases, I myself happened to notice that the PO was saying to an aggrieved woman that when she was not residing with her in-laws she cannot make them as parties in the DV Case according to High Court Order and in another case, she was saying to the Complainant Wife how come her in-laws comes and do cruelty to her when they both are residing apart about 500-kms from each other!   Unfortunately, this is how inquiries are being conducted by the Protection Officers.

Interestingly, when a Wife won the battle over arraying all of her in-laws as co-Respondents by approaching the Head of the District Social Welfare Department. The Domestic Incident Report filed by the PO naming about six members of the Husband’s family was literally rejected by the Magistrate and he took judicial notice against Husband alone even leaving aside the Husband’s Parents with whom the Husband lives now. Although, the Complaint and DIR clearly expresses commission of offences by all the 7 persons including Husband. Such act of the Magistrate is legally untenable.

Yet, where would the Wife go? To the Higher Forum? Who will bear the Costs? State Legal Aid? How long she would fight? In fact these are all the questions are perplexing the minds of the Wives in this Country? Unfortunately, such confusions amongst the Wives, POs and the Magistrate Courts are tend to generate because of those mechanical orders passed by the High Courts.

Further, I don’t understand why High Courts are taking up Interlocutory Orders, which comes in the form of Interim Maintenance Order or Protection Order passed by the lower Court under DV Act, to set-aside under its Revisional powers, when the law [Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.] forbids Interlocutory Orders from any judicial review?

The DV Act does not lay any ambiguity to alter / modify interim Order passed by the lower Court on its own provided the aggrieved Husband move the Court under Section 25[2]. Then why the High Courts are rushing to attend such petitions is puzzle to me. 

I think, time has come now every High Court should have a specialized Judge to handle Family Cases in this Country. Then only the true spirit of the DV Act could be implemented. Otherwise, there is no need of DV Act, let us go back to Indian Penal Code. Conclude.