Litigant Can't Be Allowed To Take Proceedings Initiated By Victim Under Domestic Violence Act For Granted: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant cannot be allowed to take for granted the proceedings initiated by a victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“The DV Act was enacted to provide more effective protection to the rights of women granted under the Constitution, who are the victim of violence, of any kind, occurring within the family. The legislature also noting the victimization of the women has provided a mechanism for grant of maintenance to women who are not in a position to maintain themselves. Such proceedings cannot be taken in such a light manner as pleaded by the petitioner,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

The court made the observations while dismissing a plea moved by a husband challenging a trial court order upholding a lower court order passed ex-parte in July 2022 directing him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000 to the wife.

The wife had filed the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the husband and his family members.

The husband claimed that he came to know about passing of the impugned order sometime in October 2022 when a police officer came to inform about the listing of the matter in an execution petition filed by the wife.

He however did not appear before the Executing Court and filed an appeal challenging the July 2022 order before the Appellate Court. Vide the impugned order, the said order was stayed, subject to the husband paying 50% of the maintenance.

Rejecting the husband's plea, Justice Bansal observed that he had, on his own volition, stopped appearing before the Magistrate and was proceeded ex- parte and thus, it cannot be argued that he was not aware of the order passed by the Trial Court and came to know about it only in October 2022.

“The explanation provided by the petitioner for his non- appearance before the learned Magistrate is unmerited,” the court said.

It added that the husband being aware and having appeared in the proceedings before the Trial Court cannot be allowed to argue that he was not aware of the final judgment.

“The present petition is also filed belatedly in the month of October, 2023. The petitioner also has admittedly not complied with the order passed by the learned Trial Court and only partially complied with the interim order passed by the learned Appellate Court. The conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him for any relief,” the court said.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103

Click Here To Read Order