Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 82
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Saleem Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 339 of 2024 at Allahabad
Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Verma
Respondent: G.A. and Kuldeep Singh Parmar
Proceedings under the Act are essentially civil in nature. Consequently, magistrates possess the inherent power to allow amendments to applications to correct curable infirmities or avoid multiplicity of proceedings, even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions for such amendments.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28 and 31 - Amendment of pleadings - Proceedings under the Act for various reliefs are essentially of a civil nature - Magistrate is empowered to permit amendments to an application/complaint if the amendment is necessary to correct curable infirmities, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, or for the ends of justice - Absence of specific provision for amendment does not render the court powerless. (Paras 20, 23, 37-40)
(B) Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings - Nature of proceedings under the Act - Initial proceedings seeking reliefs are civil in nature; criminal character is assumed only upon the breach of a protection or interim protection order - Filing of an application under the Act cannot be equated to the lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of formal prosecution. (Paras 20, 33-35)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged orders passed by a magistrate and a revisional court that allowed an application for amendment to the relief clause of a petition filed under the Act. The petitioner contended that no such amendment was permissible in a proceeding that follows the criminal procedure code. The amendment sought to correct an inadvertent typographical error regarding a minor dependent.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the legislative intent of the Act was to provide a civil remedy for domestic issues. The procedural framework under the Act provides sufficient room for the court to lay down its own procedure to meet the ends of justice, and therefore, the court is not precluded from allowing necessary amendments to pleadings.
Issues: Whether a Magistrate dealing with an application for relief under the Act possesses the jurisdiction or power to allow an amendment to the original application or relief clause.
Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Act are quasi-civil in nature. Consequently, the court may allow amendments in appropriate cases to prevent the multiplicity of litigation or to rectify simple, curable infirmities. The power to amend is a necessary concomitant to the court's functioning where the statute aims to provide an effective civil remedy.
Result: Petition dismissed.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA-I for the State respondents and Sri Kuldeep Singh Parmar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghatampur, Kanpur Dehat in Case No. 474 of 2019 (Mashroof Raza alias Sonu Khatoon Vs. Waseem Ahmad and others), under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (1 D.V. Act), and the subsequent order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No. 76 of 2022 (Saleem Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the earlier order has been affirmed.
3. The facts of the case as reflected from the pleadings in the petition indicate that an application dated 21.12.2019 was moved by the respondent no. 3 seeking an amendment in the relief clause of an earlier application dated 03.08.2019 which had been filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The application seeking amendment sought deletion of a part of the relief clause, stating that due to an inadvertent typographical error, maintenance had been sought for 'the minor son', whereas the applicant did not have any minor son.
4. The petitioner herein, who is the father of the husband of the respondent no. 3 (applicant in D.V. Case), raised objections to the amendment application by contending that no such amendment was permissible in a criminal proceeding.
5. Learned Magistrate passed an order dated 18.08.2022 allowing the application dated 21.02.2019 seeking amendment, and observing that the said application be read along with the main application, fixed a date for passing of further order.
6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which has been rejected by an order dated 03.10.2023, wherein the revisional court has held that proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi civil in nature, and accordingly, amendments to pleadings were permissible.
7. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on the amendment application and the subsequent revisional order, are sought to be assailed by means of the present petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to challenge the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the revisional court by referring to the factual aspects of the case and the defence which is to be set up on behalf of the petitioner to contest the proceedings.
9. Learned AGA-I appearing for the State respondents and also the counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 have supported the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and also the revisional court by submitting that proceedings under D.V. Act are essentially of a civil nature and in a situation where amendment is necessary, the Court concerned would have power to allow such amendments.
10. It is submitted that the amendment sought in the present case was to correct an inadvertent typographical error, and the objections which were sought to be raised by the petitioner herein were solely with a view to delay the proceedings, and the said objections have been rightly turned down by the learned Magistrate.
11. The question which, thus, falls for consideration in the present case is with regard to the extent of the powers of amendment of pleadings exerciseable in proceedings under the D.V. Act.
12. The proceedings under the D.V. Act, in the instant case, were initiated pursuant to an application filed under Section 12 wherein the reliefs sought are referable to the provisions under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act.
13. The genesis of the D.V. Act is traceable to the General Recommendation No. XII (1989) made by the United Nations Committee on Convention of Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in terms of which it was recommended that the State parties, should act to protect women against violence of any kind especially, that occurring within the famil
