The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides civil remedies for domestic violence, and previous acquittal in a criminal trial does not preclude the adjudication of issues under the Act.

Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral)

Petitioners in this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have assailed the impugned order dated 25.5.2012, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.M.A. No.97-iv/2012, titled as Surabhi Mahant versus Tarun Mahant etc.

2. On 19.9.2001, Shri Tarun Mahant (petitioner No.1) was married to Ms Surabhi Mahant (respondent herein). The marriage was solemnized as per the customary rites. On 21.2.2009, a daughter was born out of the wedlock. Allegedly, petitioners herein treated the respondent with cruelty, as a result of which she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. As such, respondent got an FIR registered, under the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After trial, the present petitioners stood acquitted by the trial Court, in relation to the said offences, in terms of judgment dated 31.3.2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, in Criminal Case NO.317-I of 2003/29-II of 2033, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Tarun Mahant and others. The said judgment has attained finality.

3. Thereafter, respondent herein filed a petition under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming various reliefs under the provisions of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act. This petition was filed in the month of April, 2010. Notice was issued to the present petitioner.

4. Petitioner No.4 herein Shri Gopal Krishan Mahant filed CRMMO No.97/2010, titled as Gopal Krishan Mahant versus Surabhi Mahant and others, challenging the initiation of Such proceedings. Vide judgment dated 16.9.2010, the petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to file an appropriate application setting out the grounds of challenge with regard to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to take cognizance on the complaint so filed under the provisions of the Act.

5. Consequently, an application was filed by the petitioners herein, seeking dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and also that the issues stood adjudicated in a criminal trial. Also, on the same cause of action private complaint is barred.

6. The said application stands rejected in terms of impugned order dated 25.5.2012.

7. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a beneficial legislation, specifically brought in to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women, who are victims of violence of any kind, occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Expression “domestic violence” would include cruelty in all forms, whether it is mental, physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic. The Act provides for the right of women to secure housing. The Courts are empowered to pass protection orders as and when deemed necessary, if there is threat to the life or property of the women. Under all circumstances, rights of women need to be protected.

8. Provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as also the Dowry Prohibition Act are penal in nature but the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides remedy, where civil law could not address the phenomenon in its entirety. This socially beneficial legislation was brought in, keeping in view the rights guaranteed under the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India to provide remedy to protect the women, who are victims of domestic violence. Repeated occurrence of domestic violence in the society needs to be curbed.

9. In paras-5 to 11 of the application, complainant has alleged various acts of cruelty meted out to her between the period 2002 and 2007. It is true that with respect to these incidents, in the criminal trial, petitioners stood acquit