Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Ss. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23(2), 28 — Amendment of complaint/petition — Maintainability — Power of Magistrate
Held: Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are predominantly of civil nature though governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under Section 28(1). The Magistrate is not powerless to permit amendment of a petition/complaint filed under the Act, particularly when such amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy or to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Section 28(2) empowers the Court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or Section 23(2). In appropriate cases, amendment can be allowed, even in criminal proceedings, if it relates to curable infirmities or subsequent events and causes no prejudice to the opposite party.
Merely because the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain a specific provision for amendment, it cannot be inferred that amendment is impermissible under the Domestic Violence Act.
Appeal dismissed.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Nature of proceedings — Civil character — Breach resulting in criminal liability
Held: Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are predominantly civil in nature. Reliefs under Sections 18 (Protection Orders), 19 (Residence Orders), 20 (Monetary Relief), 21 (Custody), and 22 (Compensation) are civil remedies intended to secure rights of the aggrieved woman. Criminal liability arises only upon breach of protection order under Section 31.
The Act is a welfare legislation enacted to provide civil remedies for protection of women from domestic violence, supplementing but not supplanting penal provisions like Section 498A IPC.
DV Act — Object and Purpose — Social justice legislation — Interpretation
Held: The Act is a measure to protect women against domestic violence in furtherance of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. It must receive purposive interpretation advancing the cause of women rather than a restrictive construction defeating its object.
The Court reiterated that procedural provisions must be construed to advance the remedy intended under the Act.
Section 28 DV Act — Procedure — Application of CrPC — Flexibility of procedure
Under Section 28(1), proceedings under Sections 12, 18–23 and offences under Section 31 are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, Section 28(2) empowers the Magistrate to lay down his own procedure for disposal of applications under Section 12 and Section 23(2), thereby indicating legislative intent to provide flexibility consistent with the civil nature of reliefs.
DV Act — Monetary relief — Maintenance — Parallel remedies
The Court noted that monetary relief under Section 20 DV Act is distinct and independent. The aggrieved person may also pursue maintenance:
-
Under Section 125 CrPC
-
Under Sections 23 & 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Availability of parallel remedies does not bar relief under the DV Act.
Welfare legislation — Interpretation in favour of weaker section
Relying upon Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, the Court reiterated that provisions meant for protection of women and children are measures of social justice and must be interpreted in light of constitutional empathy towards weaker sections.
Criminal Procedure — Absence of express provision — Court not powerless
Even where the Code of Criminal Procedure does not expressly provide a particular procedural mechanism, the Court is not rendered powerless if the justice of the case so demands, provided no prejudice is caused.
(Reference: S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram)
Final Result
Appeal dismissed.
High Court judgment affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment