[Domestic Violence Act] Permissible Amendments, Additional Reliefs U/S 12 Can Be Sought By Fresh Application U/S 23: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that amendments and additional reliefs permissible under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, would be maintainable in the form of a fresh application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.“Where in the application under Section 12, permissible amendment in view of subsequent developments or otherwise is made and additional permissible relief is sought, a fresh application under Section 23 would be maintainable,” held Justice Jayant Banerjee.Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 empowers an 'aggrieved person' to move an application before the Magistrate for seeking reliefs including reliefs for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent. Section 23 of the DV Act empowers the Magistrate to pass any interim order as he may deem fit in proceedings under the Act before him. When prima facie case of domestic violence is established or likelihood of domestic violence is established, the Magistrate can grant ex-parte interim orders based on the affidavit of the aggrieved person filed as per Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 or 22 of the DV Act. Case BackgroundPetitioner had lived in her ancestral home of the Fort of Ramnagar since her childhood. She stated that after the death of her father, the former ruler of the State of Banaras, she was asked to leave the house and also subjected to domestic violence by Respondent No.2, her youngest sibling. It was submitted that the petitioner was misbehaved with, manhandled and tortured so that she would be forced to abandon her residence at the Ramnagar Fort and other properties, to which she was entitled. Thus, she filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against Respondent No.2.The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, by order dated 21.10.11, restrained the Respondent No.2 from interfering in the properties shared between him and the petitioner. Against this, Respondent No.2 preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. Thereafter, another application under Section 23 of the DV Act was filed by the petitioner on 30.10.2021, seeking protection under Section 18 of the DV Act for restraining Respondent No. 2 from transferring the properties claimed to be owned by her.On 07.01.2021, the Respondent No.2 filed objections to the aforementioned application and by an order dated 12.04.2022, it was observed that the trial court would be ill suited in granting the relief sought in the application and that the matter was to be placed before the civil court. Petitioner then filed a Criminal Appeal against the order dated 12.04.2022, which was subsequently dismissed by order dated 02.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the properties under dispute were mentioned both in the schedule to the applications in the year 2011 and 2021. It was their submission that in the view of various definitions of prevalent terms under the DV Act, the issue of the properties in question fell under the jurisdiction of the courts under the Act.Further, it was submitted that given the provisions of Section 26, reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 could be sought before a civil, family or criminal court regardless of whether the proceedings were initiated before or after the enactment of the DV Act. Petitioner submitted that given that Respondent No. 2 had time and again admitted into record the family settlement agreement, the courts exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act had the power to pass and order regarding the same. It was contended that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, the court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 19 of the DV Act would exercise civil jurisdiction. Lastly, it was submitted that the delay in filing the application dated 30.10.2021 was due to circumstances that were created out of Respondent No.2 transferring the properties in the year 2021. Per Contra, counsel for respondent submitted on the strength of the orders of the High Court dated 04.01.2019 and the Supreme Court dated 02.09.2019, that the petitioners had filed the application dated 30.10.2021 just to delay the matter at hand even though they had been directed to be decided expeditiously. It was contended that the mutation of the properties in question had already taken place in favour of Respondent No.2 and that it would be the civil court which would adjudicate the matter as far as it related to the immoveable properties in dispute. Further, it was submitted that there was no evidence...

[Domestic Violence Act] Permissible Amendments, Additional Reliefs U/S 12 Can Be Sought By Fresh Application U/S 23: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

Tags