The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a case related to the Domestic Violence Act, has determined that the practice of framing issues for the first time in the judgment, burdening the parties with proving these undisclosed issues, and subsequently deciding the case based on such issues is a procedure that deviates from well-established legal and procedural norms. Justice Jyostna Rewal Dua,, emphasized the importance of informing the parties about the specific issues or points they need to prove before directing them to present evidence.
Brief Facts:
The matter concerned an application submitted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the respondent, Sushma Devi. She sought financial assistance, a residence order, protection, and compensation, asserting that she had experienced domestic violence at the hands of the petitioner, whom she claimed to be her spouse. However, the trial court rejected her application on the grounds that she failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the validity of her marriage to the petitioner.
In contrast, the appellate court reversed the verdict of the trial court, highlighting that the parties were not adequately informed about the specific matters or aspects they needed to establish during the trial proceedings. The appellate court deemed the trial court's approach of solely focusing on the marriage ceremony and disregarding other crucial factors to be incorrect. Additionally, it noted that the petitioner had not signed the legal documents, requiring correction. Consequently, the appellate court sent the case back to the trial court, instructing both parties to provide additional evidence concerning the identified matters and address the irregularities.
Observations of the Court:
In the case at hand, Justice Dua presiding over the matter highlighted that establishing a formal marital relationship was not a prerequisite in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The court emphasized that a relationship similar to marriage would be sufficient for the application to be considered valid.
To support this position, the bench referred to Section 2(a) of the Act, which defines an "aggrieved person" as any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent, including relationships that resemble marriage. The court also cited a previous Supreme Court judgment that expanded the definition of "domestic relationship" to include not only marital relationships but also relationships of a similar nature.
Justice Dua criticized the trial court's procedural approach, noting that the parties should have been informed about the issues they needed to prove before being directed to present evidence. By only framing the issues in the judgment without the parties' knowledge and placing the burden of proof on them, the trial court deviated from established legal and procedural practices, as emphasized by the bench.
According to the court, the provisions of the Act required the complainant to demonstrate a relationship akin to marriage with the petitioner, which would have been sufficient. However, the trial court ruled that the complainant failed to establish a legal marriage with the petitioner, even though she was not informed about the specific points or issues framed by the trial court, which required her to prove her marriage in order to succeed in the proceedings.
The decision of the Court:
Taking into account these procedural irregularities, the court upheld the appellate court's order and subsequently dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Jaldhi Overseas PTE Ltd v. Steer Overseas Pvt Ltd
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Case no: Cr. Revision No.132 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria
Advocate for the Respondent: - Mr. Neeraj Gupta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :