Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1537/2016)
Decided On : 18-04-2016
(1978) 4 SCC 70 – Relied upon
(b) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 18 and 20 – Complaint under – Being of civil nature, the complaint can be allowed to be amended – More so because respondent no. 1 was entitled to file additional application for the additional relief – Even amendment in complaint before criminal courts is not completely barred – a (Para 17)
(2015) 9 SCC 609 – Relied upon
(c) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Legal infirmity, easily curable – Could be cured by filing amendment application – Such amendment, not causing prejudice to the other side – Should be allowed notwithstanding lack of any enabling provision in Cr PC for entrtaining such amendment. (Para 18)
(d) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 28(2) – Court permitted to lay down its own procedure for disposal of the application under Section 12 or Section 23(2) – Allowing amendment application – Not improper. (Para 19, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No. 1 who is the wife of the appellant has filed a case against the appellant and his family members before the Court of IInd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, West Godavari, Eluru under Sections 9B & 37(2)(C) of the DV Act now transferred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile Court), Eluru.
Respondent no.1 has also filed a divorce petition before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, West Godavari, Eluru wherein she has made an application for interim maintenance as well. Thereafter, she also filed a maintenance petition under Sections 23(2) and 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Court of Family Judge, Eluru.
After the DV Petition was transferred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, respondent no. 1 filed an application seeking amendment of the petition. By way of the said amendment petition, respondent no. 1 wanted to amend the prayer clause by incorporating some more prayers.
The Trial Court allowed the amendment.
The District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, in appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court.
Respondent no. 1 filed a revision petition in the High Court which has been allowed.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the amendment application.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The court has the authority to permit amendments to petitions or complaints filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even though the Act itself does not explicitly specify the procedure for such amendments (!) (!) .
Proceedings under the DV Act, particularly those under Sections 18 and 20, are predominantly of civil nature, and while they are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), this does not preclude the court from allowing amendments to the pleadings (!) (!) .
The primary purpose of the DV Act is to provide a civil remedy for the protection of women against domestic violence, which can include various reliefs such as protection orders, residence orders, monetary reliefs, custody, and damages. These reliefs are civil in nature but are enforceable through criminal procedure (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The procedure for obtaining reliefs is outlined in the Act, and the proceedings under Sections 12 to 29 are designed to be flexible enough to accommodate necessary amendments to effectively address the real issues in controversy (!) (!) .
The power to allow amendments is rooted in the recognition that procedural flexibility is essential to achieving justice, especially when amendments are necessary to prevent multiplicity of litigation or to address subsequent developments (!) (!) .
Amendments that correct curable legal infirmities or address simple errors are generally permissible, provided they do not cause prejudice to the other party. Such amendments can be allowed even in the absence of explicit provisions in the CrPC for amendments in complaints (!) (!) .
The courts have the discretion to permit amendments to ensure that the proceedings serve the cause of justice, particularly when it helps in clarifying issues or avoiding unnecessary delays and multiplicity of proceedings (!) (!) .
The provisions of the DV Act, especially Sections 28(2), empower courts to lay down their own procedures for disposal of applications under the Act, which includes the authority to permit amendments to pleadings as deemed necessary for justice (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the courts have been consistently held to have the jurisdiction and authority to allow amendments where they are necessary, not prejudicial, and serve the purpose of substantive justice, even if the specific procedural provisions are not explicitly laid out in the CrPC or the Act (!) (!) (!) .
Would you like a summary tailored for a specific legal context or further elaboration on any point?
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
Leave granted.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties have been finally heard at this stage.
3. The issue that arises for consideration in the instant case is whether a court dealing with the petition/complaint filed under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DV Act') has power to allow amendment to the petition/complaint originally filed. This issue has arisen in the petition/complaint filed by respondent no. 1/wife. Respondent No. 1 herein, who is the wife of the appellant, has filed a case against the appellant and his family members before the Court of IInd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, West Godavari, Eluru under Sections 9B & 37(2)(C) of the DV Act which is registered as Domestic Violence Case No. 20/2008. It may be mentioned here that the said petition now stands transferred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile Court), Eluru and has been renumbered as DV Case No. 29/2012. In this case, respondent no. 1 has leveled various allegations against the appellant and his family members inter alia alleging that the appellant and his family members used to harass her physically as well as mentally and by also demanding dowry. It is further alleged that she was driven out from her matrimonial home in the month of March, 2015 and initially she took shelter at her brother's house along with the children in Eluru. Thereafter, on the appellant tendering an apology to respondent no. 1 by coming to Eluru they put up their family together in Gadam Ramakrishna's House at Ashok Nagar, Eluru, but the things did not change. The following prayers are made in the said petition:
“a) to provide protection to the life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondents;
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance;
c) Hon'ble to grant such other relief or reliefs if the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
4. Respondent no.1 has also filed a divorce petition before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, West Godavari, Eluru wherein she has made an application for interim maintenance as well. Thereafter, she also filed a maintenance petition under Sections 23(2) and 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Court of Family Judge, Eluru.
5. On receiving notice in DV Petition, family members of the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telengana and Andhra Pradesh for quashing the proceedings in the said DV Petition. This petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 17.04.2009 thereby quashing the domestic violence proceedings against the family members of the appellant on the ground that there was no specific allegations against them. After the DV Petition was transferred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, respondent no. 1 filed an application seeking amendment of the petition. By way of the said amendment petition, respondent no. 1 wanted to amend the prayer clause by incorporating some more prayers, as is clear from the following amendment in this behalf which was sought by respondent no. 1:
a) To provide protection to life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondent.
b) To grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and her 2nd child to their maintenance instead of Rs.5000/-
c) Direct the respondent to return the Sridhana amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and other sari samanas and marriage batuvu presented to the respondent worth about 2 sovereigns wrist watch, 7 sovereign gold chain presented by the complainant and her parents.
d) Direct the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the complaint for subjecting the compliant to physical and mental harassments besides including acts of Domestic Violence.
e) Direct the respond
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
