Res Judicata Not Applicable To Domestic Violence Proceedings Where Circumstances Justify Filing Second Petition: J&K High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 Nov 2024 1:25 PM IST
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that the principles of res judicata or analogous provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot restrict proceedings under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act if the aggrieved person provides valid reasons for filing a second petition after withdrawing the earlier one.
Dismissing a petition challenging the lower court orders Justice Sanjay Dhar reiterated the distinct and remedial nature of proceedings under the DV Act and observed,
“The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure pertaining to res judicata, or even principles in the nature of res judicata, can not be made applicable to the proceedings under the DV Act, particularly in a case where the aggrieved person has explained the circumstances under which she has filed the second petition after withdrawal of the earlier petition”
These observations followed a petition filed by respondent Davinder Kour, under Section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws, alleging multiple instances of domestic violence. She claimed she faced physical, emotional, and economic abuse, including being taunted for insufficient dowry and being forced to meet illegal monetary demands.
Earlier, Davinder had filed a similar petition but withdrew it based on assurances from her husband and in-laws that she would be welcomed back into the matrimonial home. However, after the withdrawal, her in-laws reneged on their promise and demanded ₹30 lakhs, eventually forcing her out of the house. Subsequently, Davinder filed a fresh petition under the DV Act, detailing these developments.
The petitioners, Sardul Singh and Kirpal Kour, the parents-in-law, sought the dismissal of this second petition, contending that it was barred by res judicata. They also argued that there was no "domestic relationship" between them and the respondent since she had left the matrimonial home in 2016.
The respondent argued that her earlier withdrawal was prompted by assurances from the petitioners, which were later dishonored. She emphasized that the abusive acts continued, necessitating the second petition. The respondent also pointed out that her petition fully disclosed the withdrawal and the reasons behind it.
Upon scrutinising the available record the court noted the circumstances leading to withdrawal of the first petition and observed that the respondent had disclosed her reasons for withdrawing the earlier petition and the subsequent events that led her to re-approach the judiciary. The petitioners' failure to honor their promises and their subsequent abusive behavior justified her fresh petition, the court pointed.
Commenting on the allegations of domestic violence the Court found that the respondent's allegations were specific and serious, encompassing physical, emotional, and economic abuse and both the trial court and the appellate court concurred that these allegations met the threshold for proceeding under the DV Act.
“The trial Magistrate, as also the Appellate Court, have recorded concurrent opinions that the allegations leveled by the respondent against the petitioners are specific in nature and that the same constitute incidents of domestic violence against the respondent. Therefore, it would not be open to this Court, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, to take a different view of the matter”, the court remarked.
Observing that the applicability of Res Judicata or similar principles under the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to DV Act proceedings, especially when the aggrieved person explains the circumstances warranting a subsequent petition the court said that the respondent had substantiated her claims regarding the earlier withdrawal and subsequent filing.
The Court emphasized that the DV Act aims to provide relief to women subjected to abuse and ensure their protection and technical objections like res judicata should not obstruct its remedial objectives.
Rejecting the petitioners' claim that there was no "domestic relationship" between them and the respondent since she had left the matrimonial home in 2016 the Court clarified that a "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act includes persons who lived together at any point in a shared household.
“Therefore, even if the respondent has left the shared household in the year 2016, but the fact of the matter remains that prior to that, she has admittedly lived in a shared household with the petitioners. Thus, there was a domestic relationship between the parties”, the court maintained.
In alignment with these observations the court found the petition devoid of any merit and dismissed the same.
Case Title: Sardul Singh Vs Davinder Kour
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 314
