Breach of Payment Order Not Violence Under DV Act: Telangana HC

Hyderabad: Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court declared that penal action can be initiated only if protection orders were violated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He ruled that any breach or violation of payment of rent and compensation and other monetary relief did not fall under the umbrella of violence. In a wedding gone sour, the complainant approached the Family Court under the DV Act and sought various reliefs.

The Family Court directed the accused to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000. The wife then moved the IV Metropolitan Magistrate that the petitioner be required to pay rents and arrears, leading to the filing of the present criminal case.

The court concerned directed the petitioner to pay arrears of Rs.4 lakh and Rs.15 lakh as compensation, which was challenged by the husband. Justice Anil Kumar, in his order, found that non-payment of rent or compensation did not reflect any element of violence. He said that it was only for breach of a protection order that the magistrate could invoke penal action. “Once there is no grievance with regard to any commission of domestic violence, it becomes imperative for the court to see whether the directions issued can be of the nature inviting penal consequences,” the judge said. “A perusal of the sections clearly indicates that there has to be a protection order by the court not to abuse the women economically, who complain of economic abuse, and no such abuse is made out in the protection order.” He accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings, stating it would otherwise amount to abuse of process.

HC norms for issuing ex-parte order

Justice Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court ruled that while exercising power in setting aside an ex-parte order, the delay should receive a liberal construction. The judge was allowing a revision petition filed by 60-year-old Mellacheruvu Varalaxmi challenging an order of the Civil Judge, Yellandu, refusing to condone the delay of 251 days in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The suit was filed by Dosapati Narayana Rao. The court found surprising haste with which the Civil Court acted. The plaintiff filed the suit on December 2023 and the court decreed the suit ex-parte in February 2024, within a short period of two months. The court reiterated the view that the defendant was granted 30 days to file her written statement which was to expire on February 2024.

The Civil Court, even before the expiry of the period, passed the ex-parte decree. Reiterating that, in such circumstances, the court must take a liberal view for the explanation of delay, the High Court condoned the delay and directed the Civil Court to restore the suit on file. The conditional order was issued with a further direction for expeditious disposal of the civil suit.

HC quashes case on 70-year-old woman

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a septuagenarian mother-in-law, in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, holding that her implication without specific allegations amounted to an abuse of the process of law. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by the mother-in-law of the complainant, seeking quash of proceedings pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, arising out of allegations under provisions relating to cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The 70-year-old petitioner contended that she had been falsely implicated without any specific or direct allegations and that the dispute essentially revolved around differences between the husband and wife. It was submitted that she was an elderly, widowed woman who had no role in the alleged acts of harassment or dowry demand and had not interfered in the matrimonial affairs of the couple.

After examining the chargesheet and the material on record, the judge found that the allegations against the petitioner were vague, omnibus, and largely directed against the husband. The court noted the absence of any concrete particulars indicating the manner in which the petitioner was alleged to have subjected the complainant to either physical or mental cruelty. It further observed that there was no independent or corroborative material to substantiate the allegations against her. Relying on precedents laid down by the Supreme Court cautioning against the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes without specific accusations, the judge held that permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioner would result in needless harassment and misuse of criminal law.