The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be set aside merely because the respondent failed to appear or contest proceedings. Where allegations of domestic violence remain unchallenged and evidence is credible, courts are entitled to grant protection without requiring corroboration or re-appreciation of facts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Mahesh Surana and his mother Pramila, challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge upholding a protection order granted to the respondents - Ashwini (wife) and her minor daughter Aarti - under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife alleged sustained physical cruelty, forced financial exploitation, and wrongful ejection from the matrimonial home. She claimed her husband fraudulently obtained her signature on a purported divorce deed under false pretenses and subsequently abandoned her and their daughter.
Procedural History
- 2015: Respondent wife filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 36/2015 under the D.V. Act seeking monetary relief, residence rights, and protection.
- 2017: JMFC, Ahmednagar, granted relief: Rs. 3,000/month for accommodation or provision of a room, and Rs. 12,000 as compensation, after the husband failed to file a written statement despite service.
- 2018: Mahesh filed Criminal Appeal No. 18/2018 against the JMFC order, raising grounds of fraud, divorce by mutual consent, and lack of evidence.
- 2020: Sessions Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the husband’s non-contestation left the wife’s evidence unchallenged and credible.
- 2024: Revision application filed before the Bombay High Court seeking remand for fresh trial.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought to set aside the orders of the JMFC and Sessions Court, requesting remand of the matter for fresh adjudication on grounds of denial of opportunity to defend and alleged fraud in the divorce.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court’s order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be overturned on revision merely because the respondent failed to contest the proceedings, when the complainant’s evidence remains unchallenged and credible.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel argued that the husband was denied a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings, as he was allegedly unaware of the application’s contents and the divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act rendered the D.V. Act inapplicable. He contended that the lower courts acted ex parte without examining the validity of the divorce or the authenticity of the wife’s allegations, violating principles of natural justice.
For the Respondent/State
Counsel for the wife countered that the husband had been duly served multiple times and appeared in court but deliberately chose not to file a written statement or cross-examine evidence. The wife’s testimony, supported by documentary evidence (Exhibit 14), detailed specific incidents of abuse and financial coercion. The courts below were justified in proceeding on unchallenged evidence, as the D.V. Act is remedial and designed to protect vulnerable women.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is not a forum for re-appreciating evidence or re-trying the case. It is confined to correcting patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The Court relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra to affirm that revisional intervention is warranted only where findings are based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored, or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily.
"Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely."
The Court noted that the husband’s mere physical appearance without filing a reply or challenging the wife’s evidence amounted to a deliberate waiver of his right to contest. The JMFC and Sessions Court were not obligated to ignore credible, unchallenged testimony merely because the respondent chose silence. The D.V. Act’s remedial nature requires courts to prioritize the safety and dignity of the aggrieved woman, especially when the accused fails to participate meaningfully.
The Court further observed that the husband’s claim of a valid divorce by mutual consent was not substantiated with any certified decree or documentation before the lower courts. Even if such a divorce existed, it would not automatically negate claims of domestic violence occurring prior to its dissolution.
The Verdict
The revision application was dismissed. The Court held that unchallenged evidence under the D.V. Act is sufficient to grant relief, and the failure of the respondent to contest proceedings does not invalidate the order. The lower courts acted within their authority and no legal or procedural error warranted interference.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Unchallenged Evidence Is Sufficient for D.V. Act Relief
- Practitioners must advise clients that failure to file a written statement or cross-examine evidence in D.V. proceedings constitutes a waiver of defense.
- Courts are not required to demand corroboration where the complainant’s testimony is detailed, consistent, and uncontradicted.
- The burden does not shift to the complainant to prove allegations beyond doubt when the respondent remains silent.
Revisional Courts Cannot Re-Try Domestic Violence Cases
- Revision petitions under Section 397 CrPC cannot be used as a second appeal to re-evaluate evidence.
- Lawyers should avoid filing revisions in D.V. matters unless there is clear jurisdictional error, procedural fraud, or perversity in findings.
- The High Court’s restraint here reinforces that D.V. Act proceedings are summary and protective in nature.
Procedural Non-Compliance by Respondents Has Consequences
- Courts may proceed ex parte without prejudice to the complainant’s rights under the D.V. Act.
- Advocates representing respondents must ensure timely filing of replies - even if disputing allegations - to preserve appellate rights.
- A mere appearance without substantive contest will not shield a respondent from adverse findings.
