1. Following important questions of law have arisen for consideration in this petition:-

I. What is the nature of proceedings under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act’) ?

II. What procedure is to be followed by the Court in adjudicating an application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act ?

III. Whether the Court is bound to follow Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) to adjudicate an application under Section 26 of the D.V.Act ?

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th March, 2017 whereby the Family Court dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’) for framing of additional issues.

3. Brief Facts

3.1. On 10th April, 2013, the petitioner instituted a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Along with the aforesaid petition, the petitioner filed an application under Section 26 of D.V.Act seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the D.V. Act.

3.2. On 27th March, 2015, the Family Court framed the following issues:

“(a) Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent after solemnization of marriage? (OPP)

(b) Relief?”

3.3. On 27th October, 2016, the petitioner filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the C.P.C. for framing of following additional issues with respect to the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act:

“i. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Protection Order under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act? (OPP)

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Residence Order under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act? (OPP)

iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to Monetary Relief under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act? (OPP)

iv. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an Order under Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act? (OPP)

v. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an Order under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act? (OPP)”

3.4. On 28th March, 2017, the Family Court dismissed the application on the ground that the proceedings under Section 26 of the D.V. Act shall be governed by Cr.P.C. which does not provide for framing of issues and therefore, the additional issues cannot be framed. The relevant portion of the order dated 28th March, 2017 is reproduced hereunder:

“6.1 Nonetheless, the reliefs sought by way of application cannot be said to be reliefs sought in the main petition. The issue requiring adjudication in the main petition u/sec. 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA is whether the conduct of the respondent had been cruel towards the petitioner; so as to entitle her to seek dissolution of marriage.

6.2 Further, a study of provisions of PW D.V. Act reveal that the proceedings shall be governed by procedures of Cr.PC. This has been so stipulated u/sec. 28 of the PW D.V. Act. Needless to say Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for framing of issues, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that additional issues sought to be framed cannot be framed in the petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the HMA.

7. Petitioner shall, however, be within her rights to seek the aforesaid reliefs, which she has agitated in her application u/sec. 26 of the HMA. The application is, therefore, meritless and is accordingly dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied)

4. Petitioner’s contentions

The reliefs under the D.V.Act can be sought in pending legal proceedings before the Family Court under Section 26 of the Act and Section 28 empowers the Court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under the D.V. Act. In that view of the matter, it is not mandatory for the Family Court to follow Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Shambhu Prasad Singh v. Manjari, 2012 (190) DLT 647 (DB), Rattan Deep v. Susha, 2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 798 (Delhi), and Rajkumar Rampal Pandey v. Sarita