Issuance of Bailable Warrants in DV Act Proceedings is Unjustified as They are Quasi-Criminal: Supreme Court - 2025-01-03

Supreme Court Transfers DV Act Case, Criticizes Trial Court for Issuing Bailable Warrants

New Delhi - In a significant order providing relief to a petitioner, the Supreme Court of India has transferred a domestic violence case from Delhi to Ludhiana, while strongly admonishing a trial court for issuing bailable warrants in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act).

The bench, led by Justice Sandeep Mehta , underscored that proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not carry penal consequences unless a protection order is breached.

---

Case Background

The matter, Alisha Berry vs. Neelam Berry , involved a transfer petition filed by Alisha Berry (the petitioner and daughter-in-law) seeking to move a case filed against her by her mother-in-law, Neelam Berry . The case, filed under the D.V. Act, was pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The petitioner requested its transfer to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ludhiana, Punjab.

Petitioner's Arguments

Counsel for the petitioner argued that Alisha Berry is unemployed and fully dependent on her father. Crucially , she is the primary caregiver for her minor son, who is specially-abled and suffers from a hearing impairment. Her counsel highlighted that compelling her to travel from Ludhiana to Delhi for court hearings would cause immense hardship.

It was also brought to the Supreme Court's attention that the Delhi trial court had issued bailable warrants against the petitioner on February 6, 2024, for her non-appearance.

Court's Rebuke on Issuance of Warrants

Justice Sandeep Mehta took a firm stance against the trial court's action, expressing disapproval in the order. The judgment noted:

"This Court is constrained to observe that there is no justification whatsoever for the Trial Court to have issued bailable warrants in an application filed under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi criminal proceedings which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was absolutely unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner."

This observation serves as a crucial reminder to lower courts about the nature of D.V. Act proceedings and the need to avoid coercive measures like warrants at the initial stages.

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition, taking into account the petitioner's circumstances and the fact that a related divorce petition filed by her husband had already been transferred from Delhi to Ludhiana by a previous Supreme Court order.

The Court directed the Tis Hazari Court to promptly transfer the case records to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Further, in a move to facilitate the parties, the Court instructed the transferee court in Ludhiana to extend the benefit of video conferencing facilities if available.

This ruling not only provides relief to the petitioner but also clarifies the procedural propriety for courts handling cases under the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing their protective rather than punitive nature.