Order Of Restraint Against Husband Under Domestic Violence Act Does Not Preclude Family Court From Making Arrangement For Child Visitation: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that the ambit and extent of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Family Courts Act, 1984, being two competing statutes, must be harmoniously construed so as to avoid a situation of repugnancy and conflict.

Justice Yashwant Varma relied on a 2017 judgment of the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar and another v. Charu Makin wherein it was observed that "The Act of 1984 was specially meant for establishment of special Courts so that matters referred in explanation to Section 7 of the Act can be dealt by the special Courts established for that purpose whereas the object of enactment of the Act of 2005 was to protect the woman from being victim of the domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society."

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a wife challenging an order dated 2nd April 2022 passed by the Family Judge granting visitation rights albeit supervised and in the concerned Court complex.

The order was challenged on the ground of the restraint which was imposed by the Court dealing with the application made under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Court noted that the order passed under the Domestic Violence Act was based upon the allegations which were made by the wife against the husband and that there was no allegation of cruelty or physical abuse levelled against the husband in relation to the children.

"Bearing in mind the allegations that were laid by the petitioner the Court notes that the respondent here stood restrained from communicating with the children and the complainant in any manner whatsoever in light of the order passed in the PWDV proceedings. It was further provided in those proceedings that the respondent would not disturb the custody of the children," the Court noted.

At the outset, the Court said that the order would not detract from the authority and jurisdiction as conferred on the Family Court to consider the grant of interim visitation rights to the father of the minor child.

"It is pertinent to note that the provisions of the PWDV do not in the considered opinion of this Court denude the Family Judge of the jurisdiction to make arrangements as embodied in the order impugned. Ultimately the ambit and extent of the two competing statutes must be harmoniously construed so as to avoid a situation of repugnancy and conflict," the Court observed.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

Case Title: SHILPA SINGH v. VIKAS KHANNA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 349

Click Here To Read Order