Personal Presence Not Required In Domestic Violence Proceedings Supreme Court Sets Aside Magistrate

Supreme Court : Personal Appearance Not Mandatory in Domestic Violence Cases, Quashes Extradition Order

 

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that personal appearance is not mandatory in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Court quashed a lower court’s order directing the extradition of a man residing in the United States, emphasizing that such cases are quasi-criminal in nature and do not require the physical presence of the accused unless a protection order is violated.

 

Background of the Case

 

The case involved a matrimonial dispute where multiple legal proceedings were filed in India after the petitioner moved to the U.S. following his marriage in February 2018. When he failed to appear in response to a domestic violence complaint, a Howrah Judicial Magistrate initiated extradition proceedings, which were upheld by the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner then challenged this before the Supreme Court.

 

Key Legal Findings

 

The Supreme Court addressed two primary issues:

 

1. Is personal presence mandatory in DV Act cases?

 

The Court ruled that since DV Act proceedings do not result in penal consequences unless a protection order is breached, personal presence is not required.

 

 

 

2. Was extradition justified?

 

The Court found the extradition order unnecessary, especially since the petitioner’s passport had been impounded, making travel impossible.

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court’s Observations

 

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta criticized the Magistrate’s decision, stating:

 

> “As the proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the petitioner in these proceedings.”

 

 

 

The Court also noted that the High Court failed to consider the petitioner’s circumstances before dismissing his plea.

 

Marriage Dissolution and Settlement

 

During the proceedings, the petitioner sought a divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Given that the couple had lived together for only 80 days and had been separated for over five years, the Court granted the divorce and directed the petitioner to pay 25 lakh as a one-time alimony.

 

Final Directions

 

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

 

Quashed the extradition order and the High Court’s decision.

 

Dissolved the marriage under Article 142.

 

Ordered the petitioner to pay 25 lakh in alimony within two months.

 

Closed all pending civil and criminal cases between the parties.

 

Directed authorities to release the petitioner’s passport within a week.

 

 

This ruling reinforces the principle that digital proceedings should not unfairly burden individuals, especially in matrimonial disputes, while also ensuring a fair resolution for both parties.