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 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)

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

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 DV Act proceedings — Remedies under Chapter IV are civil in nature — Criminality arises only on breach of orders — Magistrate essentially exercises civil jurisdiction.
(Paras 24–30)

Procedure — Section 28 DV Act — CrPC applicability under S.28(1) is residuary — S.28(2) is enabling provision — Magistrate empowered to lay down own procedure for disposal of applications under Ss.12 and 23.
(Paras 31–32)

Evidence by affidavit — Examination-in-chief by affidavit — Not confined to formal witnesses — Permissible in DV proceedings to advance object of Act — Cross-examination to be conducted in Court.
(Paras 33–38)

Objection based on CrPC and Evidence Act — Rigid insistence on oral chief-examination deprecated — Beneficial and remedial object of DV Act to be preferred.
(Paras 30–33, 38)

Inherent jurisdiction — Petition under S.482 CrPC challenging interlocutory order — No illegality or perversity — Interference declined — Petition dismissed.
(Paras 39–40)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The respondent-wife instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking protection and monetary reliefs. Parallel criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A/406 IPC were also pending. (Paras 3, 19)

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

3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application by order dated 25-02-2017. (Para 6)

4. The husband challenged the said 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;

   • Section 28 DV Act read with CrPC bars such procedure. (Paras 7–14)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Nature of proceedings under DV Act
   The Court reaffirmed that reliefs under Sections 12 and 17–23 DV Act are civil, protective and remedial, and criminality attaches only upon breach of orders. (Paras 24–30)

2. Scope of Section 28 DV Act

   • Section 28(1) applies CrPC only save as otherwise provided.

   • Section 28(2) is an enabling and overriding provision, empowering the Magistrate to devise appropriate procedure for disposal of DV applications. (Paras 31–32)

3. Affidavit evidence in DV proceedings
   Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Court held that:

   • Examination-in-chief by affidavit is permissible in DV proceedings;

   • Such procedure advances the object of speedy and effective relief;

   • Cross-examination in Court sufficiently safeguards fairness. (Paras 33–38)

4. Section 311 CrPC
   The determinative test for allowing additional evidence is relevance and necessity for adjudication. The father’s testimony was admittedly relevant. (Paras 20–21)

5. Interference under Section 482 CrPC
   No illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error was found in the Magistrate’s order warranting interference. (Paras 39–40)

---

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, subject to cross-examination in Court, is legally permissible and does not suffer from any infirmity, nor does it warrant interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.