Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
Bonela @ Kartheeka Raju, W/o Mokhalingarn and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Bonela Jayalaxmi, W/o late Chinnababuo (late) and ors. – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 835 of 2021
Decided On : 23-12-2021
For the Petitioner: Sri. GVS Kishore Kumar
The conflicting views on the remedies available to respondents in Domestic Violence cases led the court to refer the matter to a Division Bench for an authoritative decision.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence Act - Maintainability of Civil Revision Petition - The court considered the different views expressed in various judgments on the question of avenues open to the affected parties in Domestic Violence cases to approach the higher Court or for invocation of remedies before the trial Court itself. The matter was referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative decision, and the proceedings in the subject D.V.C. were stayed pending a decision.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act against the family members of her late husband. The petitioners filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the notice issued by the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were conflicting views on the remedies available to respondents in a Domestic Violence case and referred the matter to a Division Bench for an authoritative decision. The court also stayed the proceedings in the subject D.V.C.
Issues: The issue was regarding the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and the remedy available to respondents in a Domestic Violence case to challenge the notice or orders passed by the trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered conflicting views expressed in various judgments and decided to refer the entire issue to a Division Bench for an authoritative decision.
Final Decision: The court stayed the proceedings in the subject D.V.C. and directed the petitioners to serve personal notice to the 1st respondent by RPAD and file proof of service by the next date of hearing.
ORDER :
1. The 1st respondent filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2020 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District, for reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the petitioners herein, who are the family members of her late husband.
2. The trial Court had thereupon issued- a notice in Form-I, under Section 61 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners herein had filed W.P.No.8836 of 2021 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, after noticing the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Dr.P.Pathmanathan and others vs. Tint V.Monica and others (2021 (2) CTC 57) and without expressing any view on the said Judgment, had held that a judicial order passed by a Court of law is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and left it open to the petitioner to explore the possibility of invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners have now approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of constitution of India.
4. A perusal of the complaint and the various Judgments which are cited herein make out a prima-facie case for stay of further proceedings in the subject D.V.C.
5. The issue that now arises before this Court is regarding the maintainability of this Civil Revision Petition. The issue that arises here is - what is the remedy available to respondents in a DVC case, when they seek to challenge the notice or orders passed by the trial Court in such proceedings.
6. This question was answered in different ways by this Court.
7. In Yedlapalli Mary Mani vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another ((2017) 2 ALD (Cri) 199), a learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that the respondents may approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings against them in domestic violence cases.
8. Another learned Single Judge of this Court, in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others vs. State of Telangana (2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 18), had held that remedies under the Domestic Violence Act are civil remedies and in view of the provisions of Section 28(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, notices shall be issued to parties to attend, without any coercive process being applied. The learned Single Judge went on to state that as the remedies under the Domestic Violence Act are civil in nature and the enquiry is not a trial of a criminal case, quash petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not maintainable except in exceptional circumstances and cases.
9. Another learned Single Judge of this Court, in Gaddameedi Nagamani vs. The State of Telangana ((2015) 2 ALD (Cri) 764), had also expressed the view that quash petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may not be maintainable in every case and that parties can approach this Court under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.
10. Another learned Single Judge of this Court, in S.Savaramma and others vs. Prl. Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh and another (Order dated 02.05.2018 in W.P.No.12073 of 2018), had held that the parties aggrieved by any proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act can always approach the trial Court itself for rejection of complaint and then this Court, after exhausting the remedies before the trial Court. The learned Single Judge also left open the question of whether a writ petition would be maintainable against such orders.
11. This question has also come up before various other High Courts. These Judgments reported in Mr.Prabhakar Mohite vs. State of Maharashtra 2018 0 Supreme (Bom) 1303, T.B.Sakunthala vs. Vasantha 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2893 also do not settle this question.
12. In Kunapareddy vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari ((2016) 11 SCC 774), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expressed an opinion that most of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are essentially civil proceedings. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not go in
