[DV Act] Parties Must Be Made Aware Of Issues Or Points They Need To Prove Before Directing Them To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court

While dealing with a case pertaining to the Domestic Violence Act, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that framing of issues, for the first time, only in the judgment, placing burden of proving such issues on respective parties, deciding the case on the basis of such issues about which parties have not even been made aware of, is a procedure alien to well established legal and procedural conventions.

A single bench of Justice Jyostna Rewal Dua observed that parties need to be made aware of the issues or the points they needed to prove in the case before directing them to lead evidence. 

In this case, the bench noted, “Not only the points/issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in its judgment but the onus to prove such issues was also fastened upon respective parties, who were not even aware of formulation of the issues leave aside the onus to prove them". This approach it held was wholly erroneous.

Court said,

"It was imperative for the learned Trial Court to have framed issues/points for determination before directing the parties to lead evidence. The order passed by the learned Trial Court determining the points/issues and fixing the onus of proving those issues/points at the time of deciding the case was not in consonance with law."

The case revolved around an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the respondent Sushma Devi. She sought monetary relief, a residence order, protection, and compensation, alleging that she had been subjected to domestic violence by the petitioner, whom she claimed to be her husband. The trial court had dismissed her application, stating that she failed to prove the legality of her marriage to the petitioner.

However, the appellate court overturned the trial court's decision, noting that the parties had not been made aware of the issues or points they needed to establish during the trial. The appellate court found the trial court's approach to framing issues and focusing solely on the solemnization of marriage to be erroneous. It also observed that the petitioner had not signed the pleadings, necessitating rectification. As a result, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court, directing both parties to present further evidence on the framed points and rectify the irregularities.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Dua observed that the complainant's need to establish a marital relationship was not essential in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. She emphasized that a relationship akin to marriage would suffice for the application's maintainability.

In order to fortify the said position the bench took recourse to Section 2(a) of the Act whereby an “Aggrieved person” includes any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the husband and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The court also referred to a previous Supreme Court judgment, which defined "domestic relationship" to include not only the relationship of marriage but also relationships in the nature of marriage.

Criticizing the trial court's procedural approach, Justice Dua stated that the parties should have been informed about the issues they needed to prove before being directed to lead evidence. By framing the issues only in the judgment and placing the burden of proof on the parties without their knowledge, the trial court deviated from established legal and procedural conventions, the bench underscored.

The court observed that, as per the provisions of the Act, it would have been enough for the complainant to demonstrate a relationship similar to marriage with the petitioner. However, the Trial Court made a ruling stating that the complainant could not establish that she was legally married to the petitioner despite the fact that the complainant was not informed about the specific points or issues that the Trial Court had framed, which required her to prove her marriage with the petitioner in order to succeed in the proceedings.

In view of these procedural lapses, the court upheld the appellate court's order and accordingly dismissed the petition.

Also Read: Petitions U/S 482 CrPC Not Maintainable For Challenging Proceedings U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar & ors Vs Sushma Devi

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 48

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment