Decide Pending Domestic Violence Cases, Including Execution, Within 60 Days: Allahabad High Court Directs Courts

The Court was hearing a criminal revision challenging the rejection of a husband’s preliminary objection that his wife’s application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and the reliefs claimed therein were barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC.

A Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri directed courts “to make an endeavour to decide the pending proceeding within 60 days as provided under Section 12(5) of the Act, 2005, including execution proceedings also; otherwise, the trial court shall frustrate the mandate and spirit of law, which would lead to the conduct of the Judicial Officers being called into question.”

Advocate Anand Mohan Pandey appeared for the revisionist. Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Kumar appeared for the State.

Background

According to the husband, his wife had initiated criminal proceedings alleging cruelty and dowry demands and had also commenced maintenance proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. She subsequently filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act seeking protection, residence, monetary and compensation reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22.

The husband filed a preliminary objection under Section 468 CrPC, contending that the Domestic Violence Act proceedings and the reliefs sought were barred by limitation. The Trial Court rejected the objection, and the appellate court affirmed that decision.

Before the High Court, the husband challenged both orders. The State argued that Section 468 CrPC applied to limitation for taking cognizance of an offence, whereas an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act did not constitute an offence or initiation of prosecution.

The State relied on Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022), in which the Supreme Court held that an offence under the Domestic Violence Act arises upon breach of a protection or interim protection order. It also relied on Reference in Re: Trilochan Singh v. Manpreet Kaur and Another (2021), where an Allahabad High Court Division Bench held that Section 468 CrPC did not apply to applications under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Court’s Observations

Section 468 CrPC Does Not Apply To Section 12 Applications

The Court explained that Section 468 CrPC prescribes limitation for taking cognizance of offences. An application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act seeks the statutory reliefs provided under Sections 18 to 22 rather than punishment for an offence.

The Bench held: “This Court finds that Section 468 Cr.P.C. deals with the limitation for taking cognizance of offences punishable under the law. However, the application filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is for seeking reliefs provided under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act, which are not offences. The offences and punishments are separately provided under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act, 2005. In the present case, no protection order or interim protection order has yet been passed, nor has any occasion arisen for invoking the penal provisions of Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Act, 2005, therefore, the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. are not attracted to the proceedings in question.”

The Court noted that Sections 18 to 22 respectively provide for protection, residence, monetary, custody and compensation orders. Penal consequences arise separately under Section 31 when a respondent breaches a protection or interim protection order, while Section 33 penalises a Protection Officer’s failure to discharge duties.

Referring to Kamatchi (2022), the Court reiterated that filing an application under Section 12 could not be equated with lodging a criminal complaint or initiating prosecution. The starting point for limitation under Section 468 CrPC could arise only after the commission of an offence, such as breach of an order under the Act.

Limitation Objection Would Delay Statutory Relief

The Court found that the husband had raised the limitation objection instead of contesting the Domestic Violence Act application on its merits. Since Section 468 CrPC did not apply, the objection would unnecessarily delay the proceedings and defeat the statute’s object of providing speedy relief to an aggrieved person.

The Bench observed: “This Court further finds that the revisionist, instead of contesting the application on its merits before the trial court, has raised a preliminary objection under Section 468 Cr.P.C., which is not applicable to the reliefs claimed under the Act, 2005. Such an objection would unnecessarily delay the proceedings and defeat the object of the Act, which provides for speedy relief to the aggrieved person. Thus, the application filed by the revisionist appears to be an attempt to delay the proceedings rather than contesting the matter on its merits.”

The Court consequently found no ground to interfere with the orders rejecting the preliminary objection.

Sixty-Day Endeavour Extends To Execution Proceedings

Section 12(5) requires Magistrates to endeavour to dispose of every application under Section 12(1) within 60 days from the first hearing.

The provision states: “The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.”

The Court extended the direction to pending proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, expressly including execution proceedings. It cautioned that failure to make the required endeavour would frustrate the mandate and spirit of the legislation and could call the conduct of the Judicial Officers concerned into question.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision and declined to interfere with the Trial Court and appellate court orders rejecting the husband’s limitation objection.

It directed all courts dealing with Domestic Violence Act cases to endeavour to decide pending proceedings, including execution proceedings, within 60 days under Section 12(5).

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the Presiding Officers of Gram Nyayalayas, Judicial Magistrates and the District and Sessions Judge, Agra. A copy was also directed to be sent to the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, for the academic purposes of Judicial Officers.

Cause Title: Chaudhary Manish Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:225827)

Appearances

Revisionist: Advocates Anand Mohan Pandey and Krishan Mohan Pandey

State: Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Kumar

Click here to read/download Judgment