Disputed Cruelty Allegations Pending In Criminal Case Can't Form Basis For DV Act Compensation: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ₹2 Lakh Award
The Rajasthan High Court has held that when allegations of cruelty or harassment are matters of separate criminal proceedings, which are sub-judice, the court exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violent Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), ought not to grant compensation founded upon such disputed allegations. While setting aside such compensation, the bench of...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that when allegations of cruelty or harassment are matters of separate criminal proceedings, which are sub-judice, the court exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violent Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), ought not to grant compensation founded upon such disputed allegations.
While setting aside such compensation, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the jurisdiction under the DV Act was remedial and protective in nature, which could not be stretched to convert the proceedings into a substitute for criminal adjudication.
“Any categorical observation or grant of compensation founded upon disputed allegations, which are yet to be adjudicated in criminal proceedings, would virtually amount to pre-judging the controversy and may seriously prejudice the rights of either side in the pending prosecution.”
For context, the Court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the appellate court wherein the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violent Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), was only partly allowed.
The petitioner's wife (respondent) had filed an application under the DV Act seeking protection, maintenance and compensation, in 2014. Trial Court allowed the application in 2025 and awarded maintenance, along with Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation.
Petitioner filed an appeal, wherein the appellate court, reduced the monthly maintenance, while affirming the rest of the order. Hence, the present appeal was filed before the Court.
After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs towards the allegation of cruelty and harassment was not sustainable in the eyes of law, pending consideration before competent criminal court.
“Once the criminal law has already been set into motion and the allegations are yet to attain judicial finality upon appreciation of evidence in accordance with law, the courts exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act ought to have exercised due restraint in recording findings touching upon the culpability of the petitioner with regard to the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment.”
While underscoring the remedial nature of jurisdiction under the DV Act, the Court observed that the court was required to examine whether the aggrieved required immediate civil assistance in way of residence, maintenance, protection or monetary relief so that she could live with dignity.
“Such jurisdiction cannot be stretched to convert the proceedings into a substitute for criminal adjudication, particularly when the allegations of cruelty are seriously disputed and are already pending trial.”
Hence, it was opined that the courts below could have acknowledged the undisputed factual positions like, respondent being the legally wedded wife of the petitioner; she residing separately due to reasonable and plausible reasons; she not possessing sufficient independent means to maintain herself.
However, since the allegations of cruelty and harassment were already a matter of separate criminal proceedings, no further findings on those lines should have been given by the courts below.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the condition of paying Rs. 2 lakhs, imposed upon the petitioner by the courts below, towards alleged mental cruelty of the respondent.
Title: Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195