Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the law.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta held the act of impounding the appellant-husband’s passport under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967, carried out without granting him an opportunity to be heard, was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, and thus was ex-facie illegal in the eyes of law.

Court also declared the order of a judicial magistrate directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the appellant husband as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of his passport as untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

Acting on a plea by the appellant-husband, the court quashed and set aside the September 15, 2022 order passed by the judicial magistrate, Howrah, and January 25, 2023 order by the Calcutta High Court, which affirmed the initiation of extradition proceedings.

The bench took exception to the impounding of the passport merely on the premise that the respondent wife had filed numerous cases before the various courts in India.

Referring to Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India and Anr (1978), the bench also pointed out the top court, in Rajesh Sharma Vs State of UP (2018), while dealing with the question of arrest and fair investigation in a case alleging the offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, was of the view that in respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of ‘Red Corner Notice’ should not be a routine.

The court therefore directed for release of the passport within one week.

The bench also dissolved the 2018 marriage between the parties using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, saying it was a "classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage", as they had been living separately after a brief period of stay together in the USA for 80 days.

Court also directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs 25 lakhs as one-time settlement to the wife in order to assist her in starting life afresh and to put an end to multiple protracted litigations, though she blatantly declined the said offer, stating that she was not interested in the money of the appellant as her sole intent was to have an opportunity to resume her marital life.

The appellant-husband approached the apex court against the high court's order which affirmed initiation of extradition proceedings.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on February 19, 2018, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The software engineer husband along with the wife moved to the USA in March 2018. Soon thereafter, due to alleged abusive nature and second degree of assault by the wife, the husband had to call the police twice over there. Due to grave differences, their relationship turned strained and after 80 days of marriage, the couple returned to India. On May 19, 2018, the husband went back to the USA and the wife did not accompany him, and subsequently initiated 10 separate cases in court of Muzaffarpur Bihar, and Howrah including under the Domestic Violence Act.

In view of cases, the husband's passport was impounded on October 3, 2018. Between 2018 and 2020, the wife lived with her mother-in-law in matrimonial home. However, the husband claimed the wife had subjected his mother to severe physical and mental torture, ultimately forcing her to leave the house and seek shelter at her daughter's residence on September 14, 2020. A complaint case was lodged by the mother-in-law.

As a counterblast, the respondent also filed an application under Section 26 of the DV Act against the appellant, his mother, and five other close relatives, wherein the judicial magistrate ordered to initiate extradition proceedings against him due to his non-appearance.

The high court also declined to interfere with this order.

The appellant's counsel said the parties cohabited for a brief 80 days, there was no justification for lodging of numerous cases by the wife against him and the in-laws in the courts of different jurisdiction.

He claimed the wife launched a vendetta with evil intention to harass and humiliate the appellant and his family members, manifested from the multiple cases filed by her in different fora with almost identical allegations. He urged the court to step in to end the plight of the appellant and his family members by exercising the powers conferred by Article 142.

The wife's counsel said she was maltreated and was unlawfully turned out of the matrimonial home on account of the greed of the appellant and his family members for dowry.

Having heard the counsel, the bench said, "It is apparent that the appellant’s inability to travel to India and appear in the case filed by the respondent under Section 26 of the DV Act, stemmed from the impoundment of his passport, a circumstance beyond his control. Consequently, the order directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the appellant as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of the passport of the appellant, is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law."

Court further said there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the DV Act.

Court also felt the high court could have examined the record of the case, particularly the reasons for the appellant's failure to appear due to circumstances beyond his control, and hence, a reasoned decision addressing the merits of the matter was expected in these circumstances.

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan (2023) and another decision in Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel (2024), the bench said, "The filing of the cases by the respondent-wife reflects her vindictive attitude towards the appellant and his family members and unambiguously reflects the bitterness that has seeped into the marital relationship. The tumultuous state of the marital relationship between the parties is quite evident, irrespective of the fate of the criminal complaints and the imputations made by the parties against each other."

Court also noted the appellant and his family members had also filed various cases viz criminal complaint case, title suit case, eviction suit, money suit, domestic violence case, and divorce case against the respondent before various courts.

The bench, therefore, opined this was a fit case warranting the exercise of the discretion conferred under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

'There was hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship that flowed from the marriage between the parties. It is evident that the relationship between the parties appears to be strained from the beginning and has further soured over the years," it said.

Case Title: Vishal Shah Vs Monalisa Gupta & Ors