'Though the proceedings are to be conducted by Magistrates and has some criminal trappings, the Court points out the various provisions to show how the Act is only civil in nature.'
T. ARIVOLI
(This piece is a summary of the Madras High Court's judgment dated 18.01.2021 in Dr. P. Pathmanathan & Ors., Vs Tmt. V. Monica & Ors., 2021 (2) CTC 57. This is neither a research article nor an opinion piece.)
This judgment of the Madras High Court passed on 18.01.2021 is an extensively discussed and carefully drafted one touching upon various aspects of jurisprudence, including nature of legal provisions, interpretation of statutes, jurisdictional issues etc.
The judgment analyses the nature of proceedings and reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Though the proceedings are to be conducted by Magistrates and has some criminal trappings, the Court points out the various provisions to show how the Act is only civil in nature.
One of the important aspects of the judgment is that it is likely to prevent abuse or rather misuse of rights guaranteed under the Act and makes it available for the actual beneficiaries originally intended.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court has discussed various judgments of various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India while issuing 14 directions pertaining to the nature of the Act, the summary of which is as follows:
1. The nature of rights protected under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 are purely civil in nature.
2. Seeking remedy under Section 12 of the DV, 2005 must not be treated akin to complaints lodged under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The Respondents mentioned in the applications should not be treated like accused and instead of issuing summons under Cr.PC to the Respondents, notice prescribed under DV Rules, 2006 have to be served.
4. Appeal preferred against the order passed by a magistrate under Section 12 of the DV Act shall also be treated as civil proceedings.
5. Appearance of Respondents shall not be normally insisted upon.
6. It is not mandatory to issue notices to all the Respondents arrayed. There shall be an application of mind before serving notices under the Act.
7. The Respondents have a right to raise preliminary issues before the Magistrate concerned.
8. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable if it is shown that a complaint lodged under Section 12 of the Act suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction.
9. Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC challenging complaints lodged under Section 12 of the Act are not maintainable.
With the above directions, the misuse of the beneficiary legislation can be reduced to a large extent while also vigorously extending its benefits to the actual beneficiaries and the real victims without diluting the Act.
T. Arivoli is our principal associate. For feedback, write to us at nirmalkumar.m.law@gmail.com.
Comments