Breach of Payment Order Not Violence Under DV Act: Telangana HC

Hyderabad: Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court clarified that criminal proceedings can be initiated only in case of violation of protection orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He held that any breach or violation in the payment of rent, compensation and other monetary benefits did not fall under the umbrella of violence. In a wedding gone bad, the complainant approached the Family Court under the DV Act and sought various reliefs.

The Family Court directed the defendant to pay alimony of 50,000 rupees per month. Thereupon, the woman’s husband ordered the plaintiff to pay the rent and debts IV. He appealed to the Metropolitan Magistrate, which led to the filing of the present criminal case.

The concerned court directed the plaintiff to pay the due amount of Rs.4 lakh and Rs.15 lakh as compensation, but the husband objected to this. In his order, Justice Anil Kumar found that non-payment of rent or compensation did not reflect any element of violence. He said the magistrate can only initiate criminal proceedings for violations of the protection order. “In the absence of any complaint of domestic violence, it becomes imperative for the court to see whether the directions given are of such a nature as to lead to criminal consequences,” the judge said. “When the sections are examined, it is clearly seen that the court should issue a protection order to prevent women who complain about economic abuse from being economically exploited, and that such abuse is not included in the protection order.” Accordingly, he annulled the criminal proceedings, stating that doing so would constitute an abuse of process.

HC norms regarding issuance of unilateral orders

Justice Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court, while exercising his power to set aside an unilateral decision, held that the delay should be given a liberal nature. The judge was allowing the revision petition filed by 60-year-old Mellacheruvu Varalaxmi challenging the order of Civil Judge Yellandu and refused to condone the 251-day delay in filing an application for quashing of the ex parte order. The case was filed by Dosapati Narayana Rao. The Court found that the Civil Court acted with surprising haste. The plaintiff filed the case in December 2023, and the court decided to decide the case ex parte in February 2024, in a short period of two months. The court reiterated its view that the defendant was given 30 days to submit his written statement, which will expire in February 2024.

The Civil Court made a unilateral decision even before the deadline. Reiterating that in such cases the court should take a liberal view on explaining the delay, the Supreme Court accepted the delay and directed the Civil Court to reinstate the case. The conditional order was issued with a further direction to expeditiously dispose of the civil case.

HC overruled the case against 70-year-old woman

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed a criminal case against a septuagenarian mother-in-law in a marital dispute involving allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, on the grounds that her insinuations without specific allegations amounted to abuse of legal process. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by the complainant’s mother-in-law, which was pending before the Chief Principal Civil Judge and the Metropolitan Magistrate of Medchal-Malkajgiri district, seeking quashing of cases arising out of cruelty, breach of trust and allegations under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 70-year-old petitioner alleged, without any specific or direct allegation, that he was wrongly implicated in the crime and that the dispute essentially revolved around differences between husband and wife. It was alleged that the applicant was an elderly widow, had no role in the alleged acts of harassment or dowry demands, and was not involved in the couple’s marital affairs.

After perusing the chargesheet and material on record, the judge found that the allegations against the petitioner were vague, multi-faceted and largely directed against the husband. The court noted that there were no concrete details showing how the plaintiff subjected the complainant to physical or mental cruelty. He also observed that there was no independent or corroborating material to prove the allegations against him. Relying on Supreme Court precedents warning against the tendency to involve all family members in marital disputes without specific charge, the judge ruled that allowing prosecution against the plaintiff to proceed would lead to unnecessary harassment and abuse of criminal law.