Amending Original Plea Before Family Court To Incorporate Reliefs Under Domestic Violence Act Will Not Change Its Nature And Character: Kerala HC

The Court further stated that reliefs to be claimed under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act can also be granted by the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act to provide protection and justice to the victim.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha allowed the petition for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act and observed thus:

Court stated, “The reliefs which can be claimed under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act, may also fall in any of the categories envisaged under Section 7 of the Family Court Act. Family Courts can provide reliefs under DV Act to ensure comprehensive protection and justice to the aggrieved person. The reliefs under Section 18 to 22 of the DV Act, 2005 align with the categories under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Therefore, if an Original Petition filed under Section 7 of the Family Court Act seeking various reliefs is permitted to be amended, for incorporating certain reliefs as provided under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act, it will not change the nature and character of the Original Petition pending before the Family Court.”

In the facts of the case, the petitioner-wife has approached the High Court to amend her original petition filed under Section 7 of the Family Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent-husband from trespassing into the schedule property, and from forcibly evicting her and children from the house situated in the property. She filed an amendment petition in the original petition to incorporate reliefs under Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act. The amendment petition was dismissed by the Family Court and the wife has approached the High Court.

The respondent-husband contended that there were no allegations of domestic violence till the filing of the amendment petition in the original petition. It was also submitted that amending the original petition by incorporating reliefs under the DV Act would alter its nature and character.

The petitioner-wife submitted that she was entitled under Section 26 of the DV Act to seek relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act. She submitted that the residence is a shared household and that the husband cannot evict her and her children, and thus she is entitled to seek relief under the DV Act.

As per Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005, an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs that are stipulated under Sections 18-22 of the statute. Under the said provision, the Magistrate is empowered to pass a Protection Order (Section 18), Residence Order (Section 19), Custody Order (Section 21), Compensation Order (Section 22), and monetary reliefs (Section 20).

The Court observed that the DV Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing victims of violence within the family and its provisions must be given a liberal interpretation.

The Court then referred to Section 26 of the DV Act which is an enabling provision for the wife to seek remedy under the DV Act in the other proceedings pending before a civil court, family court or a criminal court.

Court thus stated, “Undoubtedly, in view of the express provision of Section 26 of the DV Act, 2005, which empowers a civil Court, family Court or a criminal Court to grant reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act, an amendment of the Original Petition filed under Section 7 of the Family Court Act to incorporate certain additional reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act 2005 is permissible in law.”

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that the basis of the original petition filed before the Family Court by the wife was regarding domestic violence. It thus stated that the incorporation of reliefs under the DV by allowing the amendment petition would not change the nature and character of the original petition filed by the wife.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates K.N.Abhilash, Sunil Nair Palakkat, Rishi Varma T.R., Rithik S.Anand, Sreelakshmi Menon P., K.M.Tintu, Anu Paul, Sreejith A. V.Sreejith

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Jagadeesh K, V Renju, Nikhel K Gopinath

Case Title: Fathima v Vappinu

Case No: OP (FC) NO. 22 OF 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 117