The Supreme Court dismissed a case filed under the DV Act against the husband and his family, ordering him to pay ₹25 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife.
The Court held that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), the personal appearance of any party in proceedings is not mandatory, except in instances where a Protection Order has been violated.
This decision was delivered in a Criminal Appeal filed by a husband challenging the Calcutta High Court’s ruling, which had dismissed the Criminal Revision petition filed on his behalf by his sister, his authorized representative.
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 noted that the husband’s failure to travel to India and appear in the Miscellaneous Case filed by his wife under Section 26 of the DV Act was due to his passport being impounded, 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.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant (husband) and the Respondent (wife) married in February 2018, following Hindu rites and ceremonies. The following month, they moved to the United States, where the husband had been employed as a Software Engineer since 2014.
The husband claimed that while residing in the USA, he faced persistent domestic abuse from his wife but initially tolerated it. However, he later reported an incident to the local police, seeking protection and displaying visible injuries on his face. Although he stated that he did not wish to press charges, he requested the police to issue a warning to his wife. Despite this intervention, the alleged abuse continued.
In April, the wife allegedly lost her temper and scratched the husband’s face, inflicting significant injuries. Unable to endure the situation any longer, the husband called the police again, leading to the wife being charged with second-degree assault. This incident resulted in their separation just 80 days into the marriage, after which the couple returned to India.
When it was time to go back to the USA, the wife refused to accompany the husband. Shortly after, she initiated multiple legal proceedings against him and his family in various courts and forums across the country. Consequently, in October 2018, the authorities impounded the husband’s passport.
Between 2018 and 2020, the wife continued living in the same house as her mother-in-law and allegedly subjected her to severe physical and mental harassment, eventually forcing her to leave and seek refuge at her daughter’s residence. As a result, the husband’s mother filed a Complaint Case against the wife. In retaliation, the wife filed an application under Section 26 of the DV Act against the husband and his family.
When the husband failed to appear before the Trial Court, the authorities were instructed to initiate extradition proceedings against him. Aggrieved by this, he filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court through his sister, but it was dismissed. He then approached the Supreme 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 noted that, irrespective of the reasons for the spouses living apart, the passage of time has likely diminished any marital love or affection that once existed, making this a clear 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 Court further observed that, apart from the irreconcilable nature of the parties’ relationship, another factor justifying the exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is the absence of a child from the marriage. Consequently, any decision granting separation would affect only the spouses and not an 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.
The Court also observed that the wife had a monthly income of ₹50,000, while the husband was earning ₹8 lakhs per month in 2018, with his current earnings estimated to exceed ₹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 held that a one-time settlement as alimony for the wife would be a just and equitable resolution.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturned the impugned judgment, dissolved the marriage, dismissed the case against the husband and his family, directed the husband to pay ₹25 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife, and ordered the authorities to release his passport.
