Personal Presence Of Any Party In Proceedings Under Domestic Violence Act Not Required Unless There Is Breach Of Protection Order: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court closed a case against the husband and his family under the DV Act and directed him to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife.
The Supreme Court held that there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), except when there is a breach of a Protection Order.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by a husband against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court by which it dismissed Criminal Revision of his authorized representative i.e., his sister.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “… there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the DV Act.”
The Bench took note of the fact that the husband’s inability to travel to India and appear in a Miscellaneous Case filed by his wife under Section 26 of the DV Act, stemmed from the impoundment of his passport, a circumstance beyond his control.
“Consequently, the order of the learned JMFC directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the appellant as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of the passport of the appellant, is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law”, it further held.
AOR Ronak Karanpuria represented the Appellant while AOR Amrita Panda represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The marriage between the Appellant (husband) and the Respondent (wife) was solemnized in February 2018 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and then in March, the couple moved to the United States of America (USA) where the husband was working since 2014 as a Software Engineer. It was alleged by the husband that, while residing in USA, he was subjected to continuous domestic abuse by his wife and endured the same. Thereafter, he reported an incident of abuse to the local police, claiming protection and displaying visible injuries on his face. Although he clarified that he did not wish to press charges, he requested the police to issue a warning to his wife. Despite this intervention, the abuse allegedly persisted. In April, the wife allegedly became enraged and scratched her husband’s face, causing significant injuries. Unable to face the situation, the husband called the police again, leading to the wife being charged with second-degree assault. This led to estrangement after only 80 days of marriage and accordingly, the couple returned to India.
When it was time to return to USA, the wife refused to accompany the husband. Shortly thereafter, the wife initiated multiple legal proceedings against him and his family members in various Courts/Fora across the country. In view of the cases registered, the husband’s passport was impounded by the concerned authorities in October 2018. Between 2018 and 2020, the wife resided in the same house with her mother-in-law and allegedly subjected her to severe physical and mental torture. This forced her to leave the house and seek shelter at her daughter’s residence. Consequently, a Complaint Case was filed by the husband’s mother against his wife. As a counterblast, the wife also filed an Application under Section 26 of DV Act against the husband and his family. When the husband failed to appear before the Trial Court, the competent authorities were instructed to initiate extradition process against him. Being aggrieved, he through his sister filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, he approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The aforesaid facts give us the impression that there was hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship that flowed from the marriage between the parties. It is evident that the relationship between the parties appears to be strained from the beginning and has further soured over the years.”
The Court remarked that whatever may be the justification for the spouses living separately, with so much time having passed by any marital love or affection that may have developed between the parties seems to have evanesced, which is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
“The admitted long-standing separation, nature of differences, prolonged and multiple litigations pending adjudication, and the unwillingness of the parties to reconcile are evidence enough to establish beyond all manner of doubt that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and that there is no scope whatsoever for marriage to survive. Thus, no useful purpose, emotional or practical, would be served by continuing the soured relationship. On the basis of the above factual matrix, the present appears to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, it added.
The further noted that apart from the irreconcilable status of the relationship between the parties, another factor that has weighed with in favour of the exercise of the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is that there is no child born from the wedlock and therefore, any direction to allow the parties to part ways would only affect the parties themselves and not any innocent child.
“Thus, this is a fit case warranting the exercise of the discretion conferred under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, it said.
Moreover, the Court observed that the wife was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month and the husband earned Rs. 8 lakhs per month in 2018 and that he would now be earning more than Rs. 10 lakhs per month.
“The appellant, in his rejoinder affidavit, admitted that while he was earning Rs. 8 lakh per month in 2018, however, at present, he is unemployed and is facing challenges in securing employment in India due to multiple cases filed by the respondent”, it also noted.
The Court was of the view that a one-time settlement as alimony for the wife would be a fair arrangement.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, dissolved the marriage, closed the case against the husband and his family, directed the husband to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife, and directed the authorities to release his passport.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 254)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Ronak Karanpuria, and Advocate Kapil Chandna.
Respondents: AORs Amrita Panda, Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocates Utkarsh Thapar, Nipun Joshi, Mukesh Kumar, Rahul Verma, Atul Mangala, Srikant Singh, and Varnit Sharma.
