LexKUNAPAREDDY @ NOOKALA SHANKA BALAJI versus KUNAPAREDDY SWARNA KUMAR! & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 608 A KUNAPAREDDY @ NOOKALA SHANKA BALAJI B c v. KUNAPAREDDY SWARNA KUMAR! & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 516of2016) APRIL 18, 2016 [A.K. SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.J Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - ss. 18 to 22 - Petition/complaint filed under the provisions of the Act of 2005 - Power of the court to allow amendment to the petition/complaint originally filed - Held: Court dealing with the application under DV Act has power and/or jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the said application - Amendment can be allowed if it becomes necessary in view of subsequent events and or to avoid multiplicity of litigation - If power to amend the complaint/application is not read into the said D provision, the very purpose of the Act would be defeated in many cases - Procedure is the handmaid of justice and is to come to the aid of the justice rather than defeating it - On facts, the petition filed is essentially u!ss. 18 and 20 of the Act and the proceedings are pred01i1inantly of civil nature, governed by the Code - There E F G H was escalation of prices - It cannot be said that wife was not entitled to file another application claiming the reliefs which she sought to include in the pending application by way of amendment - Thus, amendment rightly allowed by the courts below. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The prayers which were made by respondent no.1 in the original petition and prayer 'A' thereof relates to Section 9 of the Domestic Violence ACf,°"'2005. However, in prayer 'B', the respondent no.1 also sought relief of grant of monthly maintenance to her as well as.her children. This prayer falls within the ambit of Section 20 of the DV Act. In fact, prayer 'A" is covered by Section 18 which empowers the Magistrate to grant such a protection which is claimed by the respondent no.1. Therefore, the petition is essentially under Sections 18 and 20 of the DV Act, though in the heading these provisions are not mentioned. However, that may not make any difference and, therefore, no 608 KUNAPAREDDY @ NOOKALA SHANKA BALAJ! v. KUNAPAREDDY SWARNA KUMAR! issue was raised by the appellant on this count. In respect of the petition filed under Sections 18 and 20 of the DV Act, the proceedings .are to be gover~ed by the Code, as provided under Section 28 of the DV Act. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that these proceedings are predominantly of civil nature. [Para 12) [615-C-E) L2 The very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of civil rights of the complainant i.e aggrieved person. Intention was to protect women against domestic violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family as the civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. It is for this reason, that the Scheme of the Act provides that in the first instance, the order that would be passed by the Magistrate, on a complaint ·by the aggrieved person, would be of a civil nature and if the said order is violated, it assumes the character of criminality. [Para 13] [615-F-G) 1.3 All the reliefs that can be granted by the Magistrate under section 18 to 22 of the DV Act are of civil nature. Section 23 vests the Magistrate with the power to grant interim ex-parte orders. It is, thus, clear that various kinds of reliefs which can be obtained by the aggrieved person are of civil nature. At the same time, when there is a breach of such orders passed by the Magistrate, Section 31 terms such a breach to be a punishable offence. Merely because Section 28 of the DV Act provides for that the proceedings under some of the provisions including Sections . .18 and .20 are essentially of civil nature. Under Section 125 of the Code as well, a woman and children can claim maintenance. At the same time these proceedings are treated essentially as of civil nature. [Paras 14, 15) (617-H; 618-A-C) 1.4 It cannot be said that the Court dealing with the applicatioffunder DVAct has no power and/or jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the said application. If the amendment becomes necessary in view of subsequent events [escalation of prices in the instant case] or to avoid multiplicity of litigation, Court will the have power to permit such an amendment. It is said that procedure is the handmaid of justice and is to come to the aid of the justice rather than defeating it. It is nobody's case that respondent no. 1 was not entitle
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.