SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 4164

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAM
Lakshmanan
Versus
Sangeetha
CRL.R.C.Nos.576 of 2009
Decided on: 12-10-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Ayyadurai, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Gururaj, Advocate.

The court established the permissibility of giving evidence on affidavit in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and emphasized the objective of reducing trial time in such cases.

Headnote:

Affidavit - Domestic Violence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and highlighted the right to give evidence on affidavit, the court's power to lay down its own procedure, and the objective of reducing trial time in cases of domestic violence and negotiable instruments.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking certain reliefs. The petitioner objected to the filing of an affidavit as a substitute for oral evidence. The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition against the order of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Panruti.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Magistrate was justified in permitting the respondent to let in evidence by way of filing proof of affidavit, considering the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the objective of speedy disposal of applications.

Issues: The main issue was whether evidence could be given on affidavit in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether the Magistrate's decision to permit evidence by way of filing proof of affidavit was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to give evidence on affidavit was permissible under Section 28(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the objective of reducing trial time justified allowing evidence by way of affidavit.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed, and M.P.No.1 of 2009 was closed.

Judgment :-

The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in proceedings in M.C.No.11 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Panruti, and the respondent herein filed an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking certain reliefs.

2. In the proceedings, the respondent herein to examine herself as P.W.1 by way of giving evidence, filed a proof of affidavit. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed a memo of objection stating that there is no provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Indian Evidence Act to file an affidavit as a substitute for the oral evidence. The objection memo was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Panruti. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred this criminal revision petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, the oral evidence must be direct and there is no specific provision like the Negotiable Instruments Act to let in evidence by way of filing proof of affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the evidence includes Chief examination and Cross examination. The Chief examination should be by way of oral evidence and, if any deviation from the said procedure, a prejudice would be caused to the parties.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the remedy is provided under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, is only a civil remedy, but at the same time, the Act provides for speedy disposal and as per Section 12(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the application should be disposed of within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the normal procedure to be adopted is governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, but under Section 28(2) of the Act, the Court can lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under sub-section (2) Section 23 of the Act. The right to give evidence on affidavit had been introduced even in the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002 itself.

6. This Court considered the submissions made by both parties and perused the records. The procedure to be adopted as per Section 28 of the said Act is as follows:

"28. Procedure: (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under sub-section (2) of Section 23."

This clause provides that proceedings under the proposed legislation relating to application and orders for reliefs and offence of breach of protection order or interim protection order by the respondent shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-clause (2) envisages that the Court may lay down its own procedure for disposal of applications for any relief or for ex parte order."

7. It is true that as per Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, the oral evidence has to be let in directly in all cases. The right to give evidence on affidavit was introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure also and Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code reads as follows:

" [4. Recording of evidence

(1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence. Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with aff










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top