The Allahabad High Court has reinforced the statutory mandate for expeditious disposal of cases under the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing that delays undermine the very purpose of the legislation designed to protect vulnerable individuals. This order sets a clear, enforceable timeline for trial courts, reinforcing accountability in cases where timely relief is a matter of survival.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Shabina Bano, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband Niyamat Ulla and other relatives. The complaint alleged physical, emotional, and economic abuse, and included an application for interim maintenance. The matter was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 2048/2019 before the Family Court (Judicial Division) for Domestic Violence Act in Sultanpur.
Key Facts
- The complaint and interim maintenance application were filed on 23.12.2019 and 29.01.2026 respectively
- The proceedings have remained pending since 2019 without final adjudication
- The applicant has not received any interim maintenance despite repeated requests
- No final order has been passed despite the statutory deadline under Section 12(5)
- The applicant has been left without financial support for over six years
Procedural History
- 23.12.2019: First application for relief under Section 12 filed
- 29.01.2026: Second interim maintenance application filed
- 2019 - 2026: Proceedings remained pending before the FTC (JD), Sultanpur
- No hearing dates recorded in the record provided
- 06.05.2026: Application under Section 483 CrPC filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Relief Sought
The applicant sought a direction to the Family Court in Sultanpur to decide the pending case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, including the interim maintenance applications, within a stipulated time, in accordance with the statutory mandate.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court can intervene under Section 483 CrPC to enforce the mandatory 60-day disposal timeline under Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act when proceedings have languished for years without justification.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel submitted that Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act mandates that every proceeding under the Act shall be decided within sixty days from the date of filing. The prolonged pendency of over six years, with no meaningful progress, violates this statutory imperative and defeats the purpose of the Act, which is to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic violence. The applicant has been deprived of interim maintenance, leaving her economically vulnerable.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a written reply. The Additional Government Advocate appeared and did not contest the delay or challenge the legal obligation under Section 12(5). The State conceded, by silence, that the proceedings have been unduly delayed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 12(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which states: "Every proceeding under Section 12 shall be decided within a period of sixty days from the date of filing of the application." The Court noted that this provision is not directory but mandatory, as confirmed by multiple precedents including Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. and Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana.
"The legislature has deliberately imposed a time-bound framework to ensure that the remedy under the Domestic Violence Act is not rendered illusory by procedural delay. The victim’s right to maintenance and protection cannot be held hostage to court backlogs."
The Court observed that the failure to comply with Section 12(5) is not merely a procedural lapse but a substantive denial of justice. The applicant has been left without financial support for over six years, despite the statutory obligation to provide interim relief. The Court held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 483 CrPC can be invoked to prevent abuse of process and to ensure compliance with statutory timelines.
The Court further emphasized that adjournments must be granted only in exceptional circumstances and that the trial court must prioritize such matters.
The Verdict
The High Court directed the Family Court (Judicial Division), Sultanpur, to decide the pending case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, including the interim maintenance applications, within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before it. The court directed the trial judge to afford a full opportunity of hearing to both parties and to refrain from granting any unnecessary adjournments. The direction is binding and non-negotiable, subject to legal impediments.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Deadlines Are Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now cite Section 12(5) as a mandatory deadline in all pending DV cases
- Applications under Section 483 CrPC can be filed if proceedings exceed 60 days without valid reason
- Courts must record reasons for any extension beyond 60 days, if at all permitted
Interim Maintenance Cannot Be Delayed Indefinitely
- Failure to decide interim maintenance within 60 days constitutes a violation of the victim’s right to subsistence
- Courts must treat maintenance applications under Section 23 as integral to the main proceeding
- Delay in maintenance is tantamount to economic violence under the Act’s spirit
High Court Will Intervene Proactively
- The Allahabad HC has signaled that it will not tolerate systemic delays in DV cases
- Petitioners may now seek contempt proceedings if the two-month deadline is violated
- This order sets a precedent for other High Courts to enforce statutory timelines rigorously
