Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the principles of res judicata under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) do not restrict proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The court held that a second petition is permissible if the aggrieved person explains the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the earlier petition.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the court, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners, challenging a trial court's decision, that allowed the continuation of a second application under the DV Act filed by respondent.

The court’s verdict came in a case concerning the respondent, Davinder Kour, who filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws, alleging physical, emotional, and economic abuse. She claimed she was harassed for insufficient dowry and forced to meet unlawful demands. Notably, Davinder had previously filed a similar petition in 2021 but withdrew it following assurances from her husband and in-laws that she would be welcomed back into the matrimonial home. However, after withdrawing the petition, her in-laws allegedly reneged on their promise, demanded ₹30 lakh, and forced her out of the house. This prompted her to file a fresh petition.

The petitioners, Sardul Singh and Kirpal Kour, represented by Advocate Amandeep Singh, argued that the second petition was barred by res judicata, asserting that the respondent had withdrawn the first petition without disclosing this fact in the subsequent filing. It was also claimed that there was no domestic relationship between them and the respondent, as she had left the matrimonial home in 2016.

On the other hand, Advocate Himani Uppal, appearing for the respondent, countered the arguments of the petitioners highlighting that the respondent had disclosed the withdrawal and explained that it was based on assurances that were later broken. It was emphasised that the respondent was left with no choice but to file a second petition due to continued abuse and breach of trust.

Emphasising the special and remedial nature of proceedings under the DV Act, the court noted, “The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure pertaining to res judicata, or even principles in the nature of res judicata, can not be made applicable to the proceedings under the DV Act, particularly in a case where the aggrieved person has explained the circumstances under which she has filed the second petition after withdrawal of the earlier petition.”

Rejecting the petitioners' claim of no “domestic relationship,” the court clarified that under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, a domestic relationship includes individuals who have lived together in a shared household at any point.

Furthermore, the court observed that the respondent had transparently disclosed the filing and subsequent withdrawal of her earlier petition. She had also provided a clear explanation of the circumstances that compelled her to seek recourse through the court again. “Once the petitioners and their other family members failed to take the respondent back into the matrimonial fold, and keep the promise which they had extended at the time of withdrawal of earlier petition by the respondent, she was left with no option, but to approach the Court once again. Under the circumstances, it was open to the respondent to file the second petition despite withdrawal of the earlier petition,” the court stated.

As a result, the court concluded that the trial court and appellate court had both determined that the allegations made by the respondent were specific and serious, constituting domestic violence under the DV Act. The court, therefore, dismissed the petitioners’ challenge and upheld the decisions of the trial courts, allowing the proceedings under the DV Act to continue.

 

Cause Title: Sardul Singh vs. Davinder Kour [CM(M) No. 11/2024]