Motion challenging lower court orders dismissed Justice Sanjay Dhar reiterated the distinct and remedial nature of proceedings under the DV Act and observed:

“The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the authority of res judicata, nor even the principles of the authority of res judicata, cannot be made applicable to proceedings carried out under the DV law, particularly in the case where the aggrieved person explained the circumstances under which he filed the second petition after the withdrawal of the previous petition”

These submissions followed an application filed by respondent Davinder Kour, under Section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws, alleging multiple instances of domestic violence. She claimed she was subjected to physical, emotional and economic abuse, including being taunted for insufficient dowry and being forced to meet illegal monetary demands.

Earlier, Davinder had filed a similar petition, but withdrew it based on assurances from her husband and in-laws that she would be welcome back in the matrimonial home. However, after the withdrawal, her in-laws went back on their promise and demanded ₹30 lakhs, eventually forcing her to leave the house. Subsequently, Davinder filed a new application under the DV Act, detailing these developments.

The petitioners, Sardul Singh and Kirpal Kour, the in-laws, requested the dismissal of this second petition, arguing that it was inadmissible by res judicata. They also argued that no “family relationship” existed between them and the respondent since she left the marital home in 2016.

The Respondent argued that its earlier withdrawal was prompted by the Petitioners’ assurances, which were subsequently refused. She noted that the abusive acts continued, necessitating the second motion. The respondent also emphasized that its request fully disclosed the withdrawal and the reasons behind it.

After reviewing the available record, the court noted the circumstances leading to the withdrawal of the first petition and observed that the respondent had disclosed the reasons for her withdrawal of the earlier petition as well as the subsequent events which led her to go to court again. The applicants’ failure to honor their promises and their resulting abusive behavior justified its new request, the court noted.

Commenting on the allegations of domestic violence, the Court found that the defendant’s allegations were specific and serious, encompassing physical, emotional, and economic abuse, and both the trial court and the court of appeal agreed that these allegations met the criteria required for a procedure under the DV Act.

“The trial judge, as well as the Court of Appeals, recorded concurring opinions that the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioners are specific in nature and that they constitute incidents of domestic violence against the respondent. Therefore, it would not be open to this Court, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, to take a different view on the matter. »the court noted.

Noting that the applicability of Res Judicata or similar principles under the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings under the DV Act, especially when the aggrieved person explains the circumstances justifying a subsequent application, the court declared that the defendant had substantiated his claims regarding earlier withdrawal and subsequent deposit.

The Court emphasized that the DV Act aims to provide relief to women victims of abuse and ensure their protection and technical objections such as res judicata should not obstruct its corrective objectives.

Rejecting the applicants’ assertion that there was no “family relationship” between them and the respondent since she left the marital home in 2016, the Court clarified that a “family relationship” in the sense of section 2(f) of the DV Act includes persons who lived together at any time in a shared household.

“Therefore, even though the respondent left the shared household in 2016, the fact remains that before that, she certainly lived in a shared household with the petitioners. There was therefore a domestic relationship between the parties. the court argued.

In accordance with these observations, the court found the petition to be devoid of any merit and dismissed it.

Case Title: Sardul Singh v Davinder Kour

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 314

Click here to read/download the judgment