Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed by the father of the husband (petitioner) against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, and Additional Sessions Judge, wherein the Courts allowed the application seeking an amendment in the relief clause of an earlier application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J. while upholding the impugned orders, said that proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act are of a civil nature, thus the power to amend the complaint/application would have to be read in relevant statutory provision as a necessary concomitant. Further, the Court reiterated that there can be no complete or absolute bar in seeking amendment even in complaints before criminal courts which are governed by CrPC, although the power to allow such amendment would have to be exercised with due caution and sparingly, in appropriate circumstances.
Background:
An application dated 21-12-2019 was moved by the wife seeking an amendment in the relief clause of an earlier application dated 03-08-2019 which had been filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act., seeking amendment to the relief clause, stating that due to an inadvertent typographical error, maintenance had been sought for ‘the minor son’, whereas the petitioner did not have any minor son..
The petitioner raised objections to the amendment application by contending that no such amendment was permissible in a criminal proceeding.
The Judicial Magistrate allowed the application. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision, which has been rejected by an order dated 03-10-2023, wherein the Revisional Court has held that proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi civil in nature, and accordingly, amendments to pleadings were permissible. Thus, the present petition was filed.
Issue: What is the extent of the powers of amendment of pleadings exercisable in proceedings under the D.V. Act?
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that, the Protection from Domestic Violence Bill, 2002 upon being tabled in the Lok Sabha was referred to a Standing Committee of the Ministry of Human Resource Development in the Rajya Sabha. As per the Committee, the proposed legislation was aimed at “providing a remedy under the civil law which is intended to preserve the family and at the same time provide protection to victims of domestic violence”.
The Court further noted that the object of the Act was to bridge the gap between the existing procedures in civil and criminal law by providing a civil remedy for a complaint of domestic violence without disrupting the harmony in the family.
The Court said that this law was enacted, keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and to provide for a remedy in the civil law which is intended to protect the women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. Further, after examining the legislative intent of the enactment from the statement of objects and reasons of the DV Act, the Court noted that the scheme of the Act envisages that the order to be passed by the Magistrate, and a complaint by the aggrieved person, would be of a civil nature, and if the said order is violated, it would assume the character of criminality.
After taking note of Section 2(a) the D.V. Act, the Court said that an ‘aggrieved person’ mean any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any Act of domestic violence by the respondent. The grievances which may be raised and the reliefs that may be sought under the D.V. Act, are not to be a formal accusation as in a criminal case, and the person against whom the relief is sought, is therefore not referred to as an accused.
The Court said that the proceedings before a magistrate, after filing an application under Section 12, seeking various kinds of reliefs, provided for, under Chapter IX, are essentially of civil nature, and it is only upon breach of a protection order, or of an interim protection order, that the said proceedings get transformed into criminal proceedings.
The Magistrate dealing with an application under Section 12 is not called upon to act for the commission of an offence; hence what is contemplated is not a complaint but an application to a Magistrate as set out in Rule 6(1) of the D.V. Rules. The filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, can, therefore, not be equated to the lodging of complaint or initiation of prosecution as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’)
After taking note of S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609, the Court concluded that even in criminal cases governed by the CrPC, the court is not powerless and may allow amendment in appropriate cases, which may be in situations where an amendment seeks to introduce facts based on subsequent events, or to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. An amendment may also be permissible if it relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and in allowing such amendment no prejudice is likely to be caused to the other side.
Concerning the question as to whether a court dealing with an application filed under the D.V. Act has the power to allow amendments to the application originally filed, the Court examined Kunapareddy v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, (2016) 11 SCC 774 , and said that proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act, having been held essentially to be of a civil nature, the power to amend the complaint/application would have to be read in relevant statutory provision as a necessary concomitant
Therefore, the Court upheld the impugned orders.
[Saleem Ahmad v. State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1731, Order dated 14-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent: G.A., Kuldeep Singh Parmar
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Sanjay Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent: G.A., Kuldeep Singh Parmar
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
