New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that personal presence is not mandatory in proceedings under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, as these are quasi-criminal in nature. The Court clarified that such proceedings have no penal consequences unless a protection order under Section 31 is breached.
Case Background
In this case, both the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) had filed multiple proceedings against each other. The husband, residing in the USA, had his passport impounded as a result. In one domestic violence case filed by the wife against the husband and his relatives, the trial court issued a notice to the husband. When he failed to appear, the court ordered the initiation of extradition proceedings. The High Court upheld this order, leading to the present appeal.
SC Overrules Lower Courts
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta held that the trial court erred in demanding the husband’s personal presence. The Court emphasized that the nature of DV proceedings does not justify such a requirement.
Additionally, the Court noted that the husband was unable to travel due to his impounded passport. Despite this, the lower court proceeded with extradition, which the Supreme Court found legally unsustainable. Citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court ruled that impounding the appellant’s passport without a hearing was a violation of natural justice. The authorities were directed to release his passport within a week.
Marriage Declared Irretrievably Broken
During the proceedings, the appellant sought the Court’s intervention for dissolution of marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown. The Court referred to Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel while assessing factors such as duration of cohabitation and the impact of ongoing disputes.
The Court observed that the couple had lived together for only 80 days in the USA and had been embroiled in multiple legal battles ever since. It noted that all attempts at reconciliation had failed, indicating a complete breakdown of the marriage.
Alimony and Case Closure
For alimony, the Court considered previous judgments, including Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, and ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as a one-time settlement. Additionally, the Court directed that all pending criminal and civil cases between the parties be closed.
This landmark ruling underscores the importance of due process in DV cases while reaffirming the legal principle that personal appearance is not mandatory in quasi-criminal proceedings.
