Courts Should Not Impose Onerous Conditions On Complainants Under Domestic Violence Act : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently set aside a condition imposed by the Delhi High Court which had allowed a victim of domestic violence to lead evidence during trial subject to payment of Rs.20,000 per witness.A Bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal held that it’s not open for Courts to place such “onerous conditions”. Apart from being impermissible in law, the condition is...
The Supreme Court recently set aside a condition imposed by the Delhi High Court which had allowed a victim of domestic violence to lead evidence during trial subject to payment of Rs.20,000 per witness.
A Bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal held that it’s not open for Courts to place such “onerous conditions”. Apart from being impermissible in law, the condition is more like a penalty for the appellant not proceeding with the trial, the Court explained.
“In a complaint filed under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not open to the Court to impose such onerous conditions upon the appellant, who claims to be a victim of domestic violence. What the Appellate Court and the High Court have ordered are actually in the nature of penalty for the appellant not proceeding with the trial. In the first instance, it is impermissible in law.”
The appellant is the complainant in a case registered under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the trial, the appellant’s right to lead evidence was closed and resulted in the rejection of the complaint.
This prompted her to file an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal directing the trial court to reopen the case and allow the appellant to lead evidence subject to her paying cost of Rs.20,000/- per witness. When the appellant moved the High Court against the said order, it reduced the cost to Rs.10,000 per witness. In addition, the Appellate Court as well as the High Court said that the appellant will not be entitled to maintenance during that period.
The Supreme Court did not agree with this view. The Court then proceeded to set aside that portion of the order of the Appellate Court and the High Court imposing the cost upon the appellant for examination of every witness and depriving her from interim maintenance. It also directed the Trial Court to permit the appellant to lead evidence without imposing any onerous conditions.
Case Title: Bhawna Versus Bhay Ram And Others | SLP (Criminal) No.1090 Of 2023
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Negi, Adv. Ms. Soumya Dhankani, Adv. Mr. Shaubhik Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Hira Lal Nimbaa, Adv. Mr. Subhash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005- In a complaint filed under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not open to the Court to impose such onerous conditions upon the appellant, who claims to be a victim of domestic violence. What the Appellate Court and the High Court have ordered are actually in the nature of penalty for the appellant not proceeding with the trial. In the first instance, it is impermissible in law