Complainant's delay can't lead to dismissal of domestic violence case: Delhi court

New Delhi: A Delhi court has refused to dismiss a woman's plea seeking relief in a domestic violence case against her in-laws, saying just because the matter has been lingering for two years for recording of her evidence does not mean it should be disposed of.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Kumar Bansal, while setting aside a magisterial court's order which had dismissed the woman's plea, said, "After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that it is a matter where a woman victim of domestic violence is seeking relief."

"The legislation itself is a piece of social welfare. The record also shows that complainant's affidavit was already available on record but at the same time it also speaks that the case was lingering and for over two years for her evidence but that by itself does not mean that the petition itself be disposed off on merit without taking the entire evidence on record" the judge said while allowing the woman's appeal.

The court, however, granted last opportunity to the woman to conclude her evidence. "Keeping in view these facts, the order of trial court is set aside. However, trial court will give only one opportunity to the complainant to conclude its entire evidence with no further opportunity and thereafter complainant evidence shall be closed. Appeal is accordingly allowed," it said.

The magisterial court had dismissed the woman's plea after she sought repeated adjournments in the matter seeking relief under provisions of Protection of Domestic Violence Act, including compensation and protection from in-laws.

The trial court had granted a final opportunity to the woman but her complaint was dismissed after she failed to appear before it. In her appeal, the woman had claimed she was not at fault as the date of hearing was changed without informing her.

While seeking restoration of her complaint, the woman had said that her evidence in the matter was to be recorded on September 23, 2014 and was adjourned for December 2, 2014 but again changed to December 1, about which she was not informed and the case was decided in her absence.