Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Ch. IV (Ss.12–23, 28, 29, 31, 33) — Nature of proceedings — Whether civil or criminal — Held: Civil in nature — Criminality arises only in breach proceedings under S.31.

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Ch. IV (Ss.12–23, 28, 29, 31, 33) — Nature of proceedings — Whether civil or criminal — Held: Civil in nature — Criminality arises only in breach proceedings under S.31.

Applying Kunapareddy v. Swarna Kumari, (2016) 11 SCC 774, S.A.L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, AIR 1965 SC 1818, and Statement of Objects & Reasons, the Court held that proceedings under Chapter IV are civil, though adjudicated by Magistrates using Cr.P.C. Procedure for enforcement. Penal consequences attach only upon breach.

P. Arun Prakash v. Sudhamary (Mad HC) disapproved.
Dr. P. Pathmanathan v. V. Monica (2021) 2 CTC 57, followed.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Maintainability in DV Act matters — Held, Yes.

Magistrate acting on DV Act applications is a criminal court using Cr.P.C. procedure; appeal lies to Sessions Court. Hence S.482 jurisdiction is available for redress of abuse of process, giving effect to orders, or securing ends of justice.
Full Bench Bombay HC (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 923) relied upon.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.468 — Limitation — Applicability to DV Act — Held, No.

Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 446 followed — Application under S.12 is not a complaint under S.2(d) Cr.P.C., hence S.468 not attracted. Limitation applies only to offences under S.31 DV Act upon breach.

Limitation — Whether any limitation period applies to filing of S.12 DV Act applications — Held: No fixed limitation; Magistrate may examine delay on facts.

Acts under S.3 DV Act may constitute continuing wrongs. Legislature did not prescribe limitation and Court cannot introduce it judicially. Delay may be considered factually.
Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary, (2016) 2 SCC 705 applied.

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Ss. 26, 28, 29 — Transfer of proceedings from Magistrate to Family Court/Civil Court — Held: Cannot be transferred at instance of respondent; may be transferred only at instance of aggrieved woman/with her consent.

Magistrate adjudicates civil rights using Cr.P.C. procedure purposely to provide speed, enforceability, and penal consequences.
Family Courts lack statutory conferral of Magistrate’s DV enforcement powers (bond under Ch.VIII Cr.P.C., police directions, execution procedure, penal breach), hence transfer defeats legislative objective.
Respondent cannot compel forum change; complainant may opt (S.26(2)).

Conflicting earlier Mad HC rulings reconciled; Bombay and other HC rulings analysed.

Jurisdiction — Family Courts Act, 1984 — Ss.7, 10 — No implied jurisdiction to exercise Magistrate-level DV enforcement powers — Held: Magistrate jurisdiction not transposable to Family Court absent legislative conferment.

Similar reasoning adopted from Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act jurisprudence (Bombay and Orissa HCs).

Constitution — Arts. 226/227 — Supervisory transfer power — Held, Family Court transfer permissible only if sought/consented by aggrieved woman. Respondent-initiated transfer impermissible.