Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single judge bench in the Karnataka High Court, has issued directives for magistrate courts to dispose of applications filed by victims under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, within 60 days of filing. The judge emphasized the importance of swift action by the courts to address such cases, stating that the courts exist to provide redressal for grievances and should not allow procrastination to impede the proceedings. The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit, which holds that the actions of the court should not cause prejudice to any person, underscores the urgency of timely disposition.
The Karnataka High Court emphasized that cases involving women who are victims of domestic violence and seek shelter or maintenance through the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, must be addressed with utmost urgency by Magistrate Courts. To this end, the court noted that the Act requires such applications to be disposed of within 60 days, as mandated by sub-section (5) of Section 12. The court emphasized that this mandate applies to all applications without exception, as the word “every” in sub-section (5) indicates that no application should be left unresolved.
The Karnataka High Court highlighted that delays in addressing cases involving victims of domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act could be detrimental to the very purpose of the legislation, leading to the denial of justice. The court emphasized the adage that “justice delayed is justice denied.” Prior to issuing the directives, the court stated that it was necessary to direct Magistrate Courts to make decisions on applications filed by aggrieved persons within the specified time frame.
The Karnataka High Court has issued the following directives:
- For applications filed under Sections 18, 19, or 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, along with the petition under Section 12, the concerned court must make a decision within 60 days of filing.
- The husband must provide his assets and liabilities statement within 4 weeks of filing an application under Section 20. If the statement is not provided within the stipulated timeframe, the court shall accept the application filed by the wife/aggrieved person and pass orders accordingly.
- If the opposite party objects to an application filed by the aggrieved person under Sections 18 and 19, such objections must be filed within 4 weeks of receiving notice. Failure to do so would allow the concerned court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
- To meet these timelines, the concerned court may use its inherent power under Section 28(2) of the Act to regulate its procedures.
The bench emphasized that the Magistrate Courts must strictly follow the aforementioned directives, and any deviation from them must be documented in writing while passing orders on the applications. The court stressed that timely disposal of such applications is crucial as Section 12 is the cornerstone of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and failure to provide timely relief could undermine the effectiveness of the legislation. In the court’s view, the success of the Act hinges on timely resolutions of cases as delay can result in the loss of its effectiveness.
The court stressed the importance of Magistrate Courts adhering to the given directives and documenting any deviations in writing while passing orders on applications filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The timely disposal of these applications is critical, as Section 12 is the bedrock of the legislation, and any delay in providing relief could weaken its effectiveness. In the court’s opinion, the Act’s success depends on timely resolutions of cases, as delay may lead to the legislation losing its potency.
Finding of the court:
The court referred to the objectives and reasoning behind the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and various provisions contained within it. The court highlighted that sub-sections (2), (3), (4), and (5) of Section 12 allow an aggrieved person to seek redressal or compensation for damages caused by acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent. The court emphasized that sub-section (5) mandates that every application filed under subsection (1) must be disposed of within 60 days from the date of its first hearing by the Magistrate, which means that it is essential for the Magistrate to dispose of every application made under subsection (1) within the given timeline when an aggrieved person approaches them seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.
Upon reviewing the case records, the bench noted that applications for alternative accommodation, monetary relief, and ex-parte interim maintenance were still pending consideration despite being filed 52 months earlier. The court emphasized that all applications filed under Sections 18, 19, and 20, in addition to the application under Section 12, must be decided within the time frame stipulated by sub-section (5) of Section 12. The court further pointed out that any application filed concurrently with an application under Section 12 should also be decided by the Magistrate within 60 days of filing.
After reviewing the case records, the bench noted that certain applications such as those seeking alternative accommodation, monetary relief, and ex-parte interim maintenance were still pending consideration even after 52 months from their filing. The court stressed that it is mandatory for all applications filed under Sections 18, 19, and 20, along with the application under Section 12, to be decided within the timeframe specified under sub-section (5) of Section 12. Additionally, the court reiterated that any application filed concurrently with an application under Section 12 should also be disposed of by the Magistrate within 60 days from the date of filing.
The court stated that the failure to adhere to the time frame mandated by sub-section (5) of Section 12 would render the Act ineffective. It emphasized that if applications were filed under Section 12, they must be disposed of within 60 days as per the mandate of sub-section (5) of the same section. The court allowed the petition and directed the concerned court to dispose of the pending applications within four weeks as requested in the prayer. The court also urged the parties to cooperate with the court in passing appropriate orders on the applications, and warned that failure to do so could result in the court passing ex-parte orders under Section 23 of the Act.
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-disposal-of-application-dometic-violence-act-accommodation-monetary-relief-interim-maintenance-224447
