Back
Orissa High Court Tempers 60-Day DV Act Deadline with Realism: "Expedite, But Don't Sacrifice Fair Hearings"
In a pragmatic nudge to trial courts grappling with domestic violence cases, the has ruled that the statutory 60-day timeline for disposing applications under isn't always realistic. Justice Savitri Ratho directed the , to wrap up a protracted case ( CMC No. 40 of ) within six months, emphasizing no room for unnecessary delays. The petitioner, Shovan Kumar Sahoo (husband), sought to end the saga started by his wife, Puspanjali Swain, back in .
A Marriage Dispute Turns into a Procedural Marathon
The roots trace to when Puspanjali Swain filed CMC No. 40 of before the , accusing her husband Shovan Kumar Sahoo and his relatives of domestic violence. She invoked , seeking protection orders, residence rights, maintenance, and compensation. The case, transferred to on —for the wife's cross-examination—has since limped along.
Frustrated by the snail's pace, Sahoo approached the High Court via CRLMP No. 86 of 2026 under
, demanding conclusion within 45 days on a day-to-day basis. A status report from the JMFC revealed the chaos:
"Both parties are filing multiple petitions on almost every date... creating a lot of hardship in further proceeding."
Adjournments piled up mostly at the wife's behest, except two dates when the husband's counsel was absent.
Husband Pushes for Speed, Wife's Side Silent—but Delays Speak Volumes
Petitioner's counsel, , spotlighted , which mandates endeavouring to dispose of Section 12 applications within 60 days from the first hearing. He blamed the wife's " " post-interim relief for the drag. No notice was issued to the wife, as the court deemed it unnecessary for its directive. The JMFC's report painted both sides as culprits in the petition-filing frenzy, prioritizing disposals over evidence closure.
Balancing Protection with Practicality: Court's Sharp Legal Lens
Justice Ratho underscored the DV Act's noble aim—
"providing effective rights of protection to the women guaranteed under
... victim of any kind of violence within the family."
Yet, she tempered idealism with reality: the 60-day goal, paired with
's procedural flexibility, demands
"
, without depriving any of the parties of
."
No precedents were directly cited, but the ruling invokes the Act's text itself. The court rejected the husband's 45-day plea, opting for a six-month window from the certified copy's production. This aligns with reports like
, noting ground realities where
"numerous petitions filed by the parties"
stall progress—often at the wife's instance here.
Key Observations from the Bench
"It may not be possible or practical to dispose of the application within 60 days, but endeavour should be made for, without depriving any of the parties of. If unnecessary or long adjournments are granted to either party, the case will continue to linger."
"The provision underhas been inserted with the intention forof application filed under."
"Both the parties are filing multiple petitions on almost every date of adjournment and are also pressing more for disposal of the petition rather than for conclusion of evidence."(JMFC status report, endorsed by HC)
Six Months to Justice: Directive with Teeth
The High Court disposed of the CRLMP with clear orders:
must
"make endeavour to dispose of CMC No. 40 of
within a period of six months... unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted."
A copy was rushed to the trial court.
This ruling signals to lower courts: prioritize speed in DV matters without compromising fairness. For future cases, it discourages adjournment abuse and multiple interim bids, potentially streamlining proceedings nationwide while safeguarding victims' urgent needs.
