Complainant Need Not Cite Detailed Particulars Of Every Single Act Of Domestic Violence In Complaint: Orissa HC Refuses To Quash Case Against In-Laws

While rejecting a revision petition praying to drop the proceedings, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

“After perusing the complaint petition, this Court is of the considered view that some allegations have been made undoubtedly in general terms but then it is not expected of the complainant to cite the detailed particulars of every single such act that may be treated as an act of domestic violence.”

Factual Background

The petitioners are the parents-in-law of the opposite party, who married their son on 13.12.2015. It was alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and in-laws on different grounds including for additional dowry. After being tortured regularly, the opposite party was constrained to file a complaint under Section 12 of the PWDV Act in the Court of SDJM, Berhampur.

The petitioners appeared and filed an application to drop the proceeding against them as there was hardly any material to proceed against them. However, the SDJM rejected their plea holding that the application clearly makes out a case against them. Subsequently, they preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions and to their dismay, the Appellate Court also held that the complaint petition prima facie reveals a case of domestic violence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached the High Court in the present revision.

Contentions of the Petitioners

Surya Prasad Mishra, senior counsel for the petitioners contended that if the averments made in the complaint petition are viewed objectively, it would reveal that the allegations are directed mainly against the husband. He argued, firstly there are no allegations as such to show commission of domestic violence and secondly, the same are too general in nature to be taken note of judicially.

He also submitted that there is a tendency to implicate all the in-laws and other family members only to harass them and therefore, he prayed the Court to judiciously separate the “grain from the chaff”. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on Shyamlal Devda & Ors. v. Parimala.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

S.K. Pradhan, advocate for the opposite party contended that ‘strict rules of pleading’ are not applicable to a complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act. He also submitted that having regard for the statutory intent of protecting women from domestic violence, it would suffice if the complaint prima facie contains allegations which can be subsequently proved by adducing evidence.

He submitted that there are enough materials to show that the opposite party was subjected to physical, mental, verbal and emotional torture by the petitioners at different points of time and thus, both the courts below have rightly rejected the contentions advanced by them.

Court’s Observations

After perusing the complaint as a whole, the Court acknowledged the averments made therein to the effect that the husband of the complainant used to exhibit violent behaviour and the petitioners allegedly encouraged him to do so and also restrained the complainant from disclosing the same to her parents.

Further, the Bench was of the view that though some of the allegations have been made in general terms, it is not expected of the complainant to explain the ‘detailed particulars’ of every single such act of domestic violence Accordingly, the Court noted,

“Thus, while the main allegations appear to be directed against the husband, the role of the present petitioners appears to be confined to supporting their son and in omitting to restrain him from exhibiting violent behavior towards the complainant. Read as a whole, it cannot be said that the averments do not make out a case of domestic violence against the petitioners. On the contrary, this Court is of the view that the averments, prima facie, show acts of domestic violence by the petitioners against the complainant by way of commission as well as omission.”

However, it clarified that the allegations need to be proved in an appropriate proceeding before the competent Court to hold the petitioners guilty. But at this preliminary stage, the allegations made in the complaint would suffice to continue the proceedings against them.

The Court also said that Shyamlal Devda (supra) can be easily distinguished factually as in the said case several other family members apart from the husband and parents-in-law were impleaded as parties without any specific allegations of domestic violence against them. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court had observed that in the absence of specific allegations, the case of domestic violence was liable to be quashed against the relatives.

Resultantly, the revision petition was dismissed being devoid of merit.

Case Title: Girish Prasad Mishra & Anr. v. Smt. Lopamudra Kar

Case No.: CRLREV No. 266 of 2020

Judgment Dated: 5^th January 2023

Coram: Sashikanta Mishra, J.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra, Senior Counsel, Mr. Soumya Mishra, Mr. A. Mohanta, Mr. M. Mohanty & Mr. B. Jena, Advocates

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Mr. S.K. Pradhan, Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 6