Section 12 DV Act: Allahabad HC Directs Courts To Decide Domestic Violence Cases Within 60 Days

The Allahabad High Court has directed courts handling domestic violence cases to endeavour to decide pending proceedings, including execution proceedings, within 60 days, cautioning that failure to follow the statutory timeline could lead to the conduct of judicial officers being called into question.

The bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri was dealing with a revision petition filed by a husband to set aside the orders of the courts below in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), by his wife seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act.

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act allows an aggrieved woman, a protection officer or any person acting on her behalf to approach a Magistrate seeking reliefs such as protection, residence, monetary assistance, custody and compensation for domestic violence.

Before the trial court, the husband raised a preliminary objection that the wife's petition was barred by limitation. He placed reliance upon Section 468 CrPC, which provides for bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. However, the trial court as well as the appellate court rejected his application.

Questioning the maintainability of the husband's revision petition before the high court, the state counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 468 CrPC are not applicable to the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act. He referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022). The Apex Court had held that filing of an application under Section 12 of the DV Act does not constitute an offence and that an offence arises only when the respondent breaches a protection order or an interim protection order passed by the Magistrate under the Act. Therefore, the limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. cannot be calculated from the date of filing of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act.

The state counsel claimed that the husband had filed the revision only to delay the proceedings in the wife's petition. 

Importantly, he pointed out that under Section 12(5) of the DV Act, the magistrate is under an obligation to endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of 60 days from the date of its first hearing.

Justice Giri noted that Section 468 CrPC prescribes the period of limitation for taking cognizance of offences punishable with imprisonment up to six months, one year, and three years, respectively. He highlighted that under the provisions of the DV Act, there was no specific punishment prescribed in respect of the reliefs sought by the wife in the present case under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said Act.

He further pointed out that in the case at hand, no protection order or interim protection order had yet been passed, therefore, there was no occasion for Section 468 to be attracted. 

Therefore, finding that the husband's attempt appeared only to delay the proceedings rather than contesting the matter on merit, court dismissed his plea. 

Moreover, court issued a direction to all the courts dealing with cases under the DV Act to decide them within 60 days. 

Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the presiding officers of the gram nyayalaya, judicial magistrates and the District and Sessions Judge, Agra, as well as transmit a copy of the order to the Judicial Training and Research Institute, U.P. Lucknow (J.T.R.I.), for the academic purposes of the judicial officers. 

Case Title: Chaudhary Manish Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: October 30, 2026

Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri