Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023

A single judge passed this Restricted Order (only downloadable for litigants/advocates on the case),

From Paras 20 and 21,

Under DV Act, Magistrate is competent to pass final as well as interim orders. Sessions Court is appointed as appellate authority to entertain appeal against order passed by Magistrate. As per petitioner, appellate Court is not specifically vested with power to grant interim relief, thus, appellate court cannot pass interim order staying operation of impugned order. If it is held that under Section 29 appellate court is not bestowed with power to pass interim order against interim order because there is no specific power under Section 29, the appellate court would be denuded from power to pass interim order even against final order because there is no such specific power qua final order. Existence of power and use of power are two different dimensions of legal jurisprudence.
Matter needs to be examined from one more angle. The appellate court may or may not exercise power to pass interim order, however, if it is held that appellate court in terms of Section 29 has no power to pass interim order, it would amount to curtailing the powers of appellate court. It seems to be contrary to settled canons of law that appellate authority or court unless specifically barred can exercise all those powers which are vested in subordinate authority. It cannot be approved that Magistrate has power to pass interim order, however, appellate court has no power to pass interim order. Due to overburden, more often than not, appellate courts are unable to finally adjudicate appeal against interim order and if it is held that appellate court has no power to pass interim order, Magistrate may finally decide the issue and appeal would become infructuous.
In view of above-cited judgments and settled principles of law, this court is of the considered opinion that appellate court while exercising powers under Section 29 of DV Act has power to pass interim order.
21. In view of above facts and findings, it is hereby held:
i) Appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act is maintainable against interim order passed under Section 23 of the DV Act.
ii) Appellate Court while exercising power under Section 29 of DV Act has power to pass interim order.

Index of DV cases is here.

Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division bench of Delhi High Court held that, the law does not prescribe any precondition such that the arrears amount of maintenance has to be deposited before appeal or revision can be allowed.

From Para 22,

22. Neither the language used by the Legislature in Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., nor the language used in Section 29 of the DV Act even remotely suggest that the Legislature intended to impose pre-conditions to the availment of the said remedies, of the kind evolved in Rajeev Preenja (supra).

And then from Para 25,

25. Laudable as the object of the learned Single Judge may have been, the question is, whether in the light of the settled law taken note of hereinabove, the learned Single Judge while deciding Rajeev Preenja (supra) could have issued a general direction barring entertainment of criminal revisions under Section 399 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against orders granting interim maintenance to the wife/ child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., unless the entire arrears of maintenance up to date were first deposited? In our view, with due respect to the learned Single Judge, the answer is clearly in the negative. As to what should be the policy of the law is a matter which squarely falls within the preserve of the Legislature, and it is not a matter which the Courts can dictate, or evolve. It is one thing to interpret an existing law and, while doing so, to adopt an interpretation which is purposive, i.e. one which advances the objective of the enactment. However, it is quite a different thing to evolve a statutory scheme which, even the Legislature did not provide for.

Finally, in Para 30,

30. Thus, we answer the reference by holding that the general direction issued in Rajeev Preenja (supra) in paragraphs 15, 16 and 20 are not sustainable. The said directions could not have been issued by the learned Single Judge as they seek to curtail the statutory remedy of revision available under Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, and of appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, against orders granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 23 of the DV Act respectively. The direction in question over steps into the legislative field, which was impermissible for the Court to do. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Brijesh Kumar Gupta (supra), that there cannot be an absolute rider that the entire maintenance amount, as granted by the Trial Court, should be deposited prior to the entertainment of the statutory remedy, because it would leave the remedy of statutory revision/ appeal illusory. Accordingly, we hold that a revision under Section 399 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, against the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 23 of the DV Act respectively, would be maintainable, and would be entertained and heard without any pre-condition of deposit of the arrears of maintenance as ordered by the Ld. MM. We further hold that the pendency of such a Revision or Appeal- as the case may be, shall not operate as a stay of the operation of the order granting interim maintenance. The reference is answered accordingly.

Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018

Citations : [2018 SCC ONLINE DEL 9747], [2018 DLT 251 245], [2018 HLR 3 413], [2019 CRI LJ 218]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80568294/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b44dfac9eff431bb54655a9

Chithrangathan Vs Seema on 4 September, 2007

Posted on February 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Kerala High Court has dismissed this revision petition as PWDV Act provides for Appeal under Sec 29.

Chithrangathan Vs Seema on 4 September, 2007

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Amarjeet Singh Saunkhi Vs Rashmi Manku on 31 January, 2019

Posted on February 13, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

DV Orders are appealable under Section 29 of PWDV Act.

Amarjeet Singh Saunkhi Vs Rashmi Manku on 31 January, 2019

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark quash judgment by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which laid down few criteria only under which DVC quash under CrPC 482 is maintainable.

From Para 13,

The next aspect is having regard to the fact that the reliefs provided under Section 18 to 22 are civil reliefs and enquiry under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act is not a trial of a criminal case, whether the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and thereby continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court etc., pleas. In my considered view, having regard to the facts that the scheme of the Act which provide civil reliefs and the Magistrate can lay his own procedure by not taking coercive steps in general course and the enquiry being not the trial of a criminal offence, the respondents cannot rush with 482 Cr.P.C petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in. They can establish their non involvement in the matter and non-answerability to the reliefs claimed by participating in the enquiry. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.

From Para 14,

14) To sum up the findings:
i) Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.

ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State Of Telangana on 16 February, 2015

Citations: 2015 ALD CRL AP 2 470

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71870497/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8dce4b01497111438bd

This decision (with respect to shared householding requirement in DV cases) seems to be overruled by Supreme Court here. This judgment was not considered in the SC judgment.

Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: PWDV Act Sec 29 – Appeal Available

Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023

Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018

Chithrangathan Vs Seema on 4 September, 2007

Amarjeet Singh Saunkhi Vs Rashmi Manku on 31 January, 2019

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015