Evidence — Examination-in-chief by affidavit — Not confined to formal witnesses — S.28(2) DV Act enables Court to lay down its own procedure — Affidavit evidence permissible to advance object of Act — Cross-examination to be in Court. (Paras 31–34, 38)

advocatemmmohan

PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 — Ss. 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28 —
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 — Ss. 125, 126, 311, 482 —
EVIDENCE — EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY AFFIDAVIT — PERMISSIBILITY

Domestic Violence proceedings — Application under S.311 CrPC — Additional evidence of complainant’s father — Relevance not disputed — Allowing examination of additional witness upheld.
(Paras 18–21)

Nature of proceedings under DV Act — Remedies are civil in nature — Criminality attaches only upon breach of orders — Proceedings essentially governed by civil procedure with flexibility under S.28(2) DV Act.
(Paras 24–30, 32)

Evidence — Examination-in-chief by affidavit — Not confined to formal witnesses — S.28(2) DV Act enables Court to lay down its own procedure — Affidavit evidence permissible to advance object of Act — Cross-examination to be in Court.
(Paras 31–34, 38)

CrPC procedure — Applicability under S.28(1) DV Act is residuary — Rigid insistence on oral chief-examination would defeat expeditious and beneficial object of Act.
(Paras 30–33)

Section 482 CrPC — Challenge to interlocutory order allowing affidavit evidence — No illegality or infirmity — Petition dismissed.
(Paras 39–40)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The respondent-wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking various civil reliefs, alongside parallel criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A/406 IPC. (Paras 3, 19)

2. During pendency of DV proceedings, she moved an application under Section 311 CrPC to adduce additional evidence of her father by way of an affidavit. (Paras 4–6)

3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application by order dated 25-02-2017, permitting the father’s examination-in-chief by affidavit. (Para 6)

4. The husband challenged the order under Section 482 CrPC, contending that:

   • Evidence under DV Act must be recorded orally in Court;

   • Affidavit evidence is permissible only for formal witnesses;

   • Allowing affidavit evidence violates CrPC and Evidence Act. (Paras 7–14)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The Court traced the legislative object and Statement of Objects and Reasons of the DV Act and reaffirmed that the remedies under the Act are civil, protective and remedial in nature. (Paras 24–25)

2. Relying on Kunapareddy v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, Kamatchi v. Laxmi Narayanan, and allied precedents, the Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 12 DV Act are essentially civil, notwithstanding reference to CrPC. (Paras 26–27)

3. Section 28(2) DV Act was held to be an enabling provision, authorising the Magistrate to devise appropriate procedure for disposal of applications under Sections 12 and 23. (Paras 31–32)

4. The Court approved the approach adopted by Bombay and Gujarat High Courts that examination-in-chief by affidavit is permissible in DV proceedings, subject to cross-examination in Court, to ensure expeditious relief. (Paras 33–34)

5. The argument that affidavit evidence is confined only to formal witnesses or special statutes (NI Act, Family Courts Act) was rejected, as inconsistent with the beneficial and flexible scheme of the DV Act. (Paras 30–33, 38)

6. The relevance of the father’s testimony was not disputed; hence, the Magistrate committed no error in permitting affidavit evidence. (Paras 20–21, 39)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are essentially civil in nature, and by virtue of Section 28(2) of the Act, the Magistrate is empowered to lay down an appropriate procedure for their disposal; consequently, permitting examination-in-chief of a witness by way of affidavit, with opportunity for cross-examination in Court, is legally permissible and does not suffer from any infirmity.