Application Under Section 12 Of Domestic Violence Act Not Barred By Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC : Karnataka High Court

A single bench of Justice KS Mudagal said "When the application under Section 12 of the DV Act is not covered under the term 'offence', section 468 of Cr.P.C is inapplicable. Therefore the application of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. to an application under Section 12 of the DV Act is clearly a misconception."

The court noted that Section 468 (1) and 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. themselves show that the bar of limitation for taking cognizance is intertwined with an offence. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. comes into picture only if there is an offence. If there is no offence, there is no limitation.

The Court said that under Section 12 of the DV Act, domestic violence is not called or treated as an offence. It speaks of court granting relief and not of conviction and sentence. The judgment said "To attract Section 468 of Cr.P.C, essentially the Act alleged must be an offence. Under the DV Act, the offence is not defined, as defined in Section 40 of IPC."

Justice Mudagal opined "Section 12 of the DV Act is only an enabling provision to initiate enquiry to find out whether such act or omission is committed."

Finally it concluded by saying "Section 31 of the DV Act makes it clear that only breach of the protection order or interim protection order etc. passed under Section 12 of the DV Act constitutes an offence and made punishable. Therefore it is clear that the act or omission contemplated under Section 31 of the DV Act is an offence and the application under Section 12 of the DV Act itself is not an offence."

The court passed the order while hearing a petition filed by one Puttaraju challenging the order dated April 11, 2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, directing him to the pay an amount of Rs 8,000 per month to his wife and children as maintenance and house rent.

The husband challenged the order which directed him to deposit an amount of Rs 4,32,000. The court had directed the amount to be transferred to the magistrate court from where the wife could withdraw the same. The wife filed an application seeking to withdraw the amount which was challenged by the husband on the grounds that the petition was filed 10 years from the date of the alleged domestic incident, therefore the petition itself was not maintainable.