Revision Under S.397 CrPC Barred When Appeal Under S.29 DV Act Not Filed; Adverse Order Without Hearing is Illegal: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-13

Delhi High Court Quashes Orders Against Elderly In-Laws, Calls Remarried Widow's DV Case a "Masterclass in Abusing the Process of Law"

New Delhi: In a scathing judgment, the Delhi High Court has quashed proceedings against an elderly couple initiated by their widowed daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act, terming her actions a "textbook example of abusing the process of law." Justice Arun Monga condemned the continuation of litigation against the aged in-laws after the death of their son and the complainant's subsequent remarriage, imposing costs of ₹50,000 on her for causing "undue hardship" and "harassment."

The court set aside an order by an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) that had revived proceedings against the petitioners, Smt. Usha Sharma and her husband, ruling that the order was passed illegally and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a domestic violence complaint filed in August 2021 by the respondent, Swati Sharma, against her late husband and his family members. Initially, a Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), relying on a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) from the Protection Officer, deleted the names of the elderly parents-in-law (the petitioners) from the case on September 13, 2021. The DIR noted that the petitioners lived separately and had not visited the complainant since September 2019.

Following the death of her husband on December 26, 2021, the respondent, after a delay of nearly 12 months, challenged the MM's order by filing a revision petition. On November 1, 2022, the ASJ allowed the revision and restored the proceedings against the petitioners without issuing them notice or giving them a chance to be heard. Consequently, the MM re-summoned the elderly couple on November 15, 2022, prompting them to approach the High Court.

Petitioners' Arguments

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the ASJ's order was without jurisdiction and violated natural justice. The key contentions were: - The respondent had a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act within 30 days, which she failed to do. - Filing a revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. after an inordinate delay was an afterthought intended to harass the petitioners. - The ASJ passed an adverse order against them without providing an opportunity to be heard, which is a clear violation of legal principles. - The allegations against them were vague, and the DIR itself confirmed they were not involved in any domestic violence.

The High Court's Legal Reasoning

Justice Arun Monga found merit in the petitioners' arguments, holding that the ASJ committed a "dual illegality."

Revision Petition Barred by Law

The court emphasized that where a specific statutory remedy of appeal is available, a revision petition cannot be entertained. It cited Section 401(4) of the Cr.P.C. , which explicitly bars revision proceedings at the instance of a party who could have appealed but did not.

"In the present case, the Respondent had a statutory right of appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act against the order dated 13.09.2021 deleting the Petitioners’ names. By virtue of Section 401(4) Cr.P.C., the revision petition was barred and could not have been entertained by the Sessions Court."

Violation of Natural Justice

The High Court also found that the ASJ's order was "ex facie unsustainable" for being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Citing Section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C. , the judgment noted that no prejudicial order can be made unless the affected party has been heard.

"The impugned revisional order was passed to the grave prejudice of the Petitioners without issuance of notice or affording them any opportunity of hearing... The order is completely silent on this aspect, making it ex facie unsustainable."

Scathing Rebuke for "Abuse of Process"

In unusually strong terms, Justice Monga condemned the respondent's conduct, highlighting that she had remarried but continued to pursue litigation against her deceased husband's grieving parents.

"If there were ever a masterclass in abusing the process of law, the Respondent has surely authored it. Having lost no time in remarrying, she nevertheless clings to proceedings against her deceased husband’s aged parents, as though widowhood confers upon her the perpetual right to harass them."

The court characterized the proceedings as "nothing but calculated harassment, needless hardship, and public humiliation for the Petitioners," and a "blatant abuse of the benevolent provisions meant for protection of women from domestic violence."

Final Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, quashing both the ASJ's order of November 1, 2022, and the subsequent summoning order by the MM dated November 15, 2022. The court directed the respondent, Swati Sharma, to pay ₹50,000 in costs to the petitioners for the "sheer vengeance" and unnecessary litigation she had forced upon them.