Recently, The Bombay High Court’s single-judge bench deferred the decision regarding the possibility of quashing compensation pleas under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) at the early stage, referring the matter to a larger bench. The larger bench will deliberate on whether such pleas can indeed be dismissed at the initial notice stage of the legal process.
Mumbai: Recently, a single judge in the Bombay High Court referred a larger bench to consider whether high courts can dismiss compensation applications under the Domestic Violence Act at the early stages.
The primary focus of the court’s scrutiny lies in determining whether applications for compensation under Section 12 of the DV Act can be dismissed by the High Court during the preliminary stages before a magistrate.
Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act empowers aggrieved individuals to seek compensation or damages by approaching a local magistrate.
Before the magistrate can consider the application, they are directed to review any reports filed by a protection officer under the Act. Additionally, a notice under Section 13 of the DV Act must be issued to the protection officer and other concerned parties.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was confronted with the pivotal question of whether such compensation applications could be quashed by the High Court at the stage of issuing notice under Section 13.
The judge observed a conflict in opinions regarding the High Court’s authority to quash such applications under Section 482 (inherent powers) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Articles 226 (writ jurisdiction) or 227 (supervisory jurisdiction) of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Deshmukh highlighted that despite both cases drawing reference from the same Supreme Court decision in Kamatchi v. Laxmi Narayanan, they arrived at contradictory conclusions.
Acknowledging the conflict, Justice Deshmukh deemed it necessary to refer the matter to a larger bench of the High Court.
Additional public prosecutors, Shilpa Gajare, Mr. Tidke, and Kiran Shinde, represented the state’s interests in the proceedings.
Advocates such as Kirti Ahuja, Mihir Gheewala, Ishan Jani, and Kanika Ahuja, among others, advocated for the maintainability of the quashing petitions. Conversely, senior advocate Mihir Desai, along with a team of advocates, opposed the petitions’ maintainability.
Furthermore, the judge emphasized that the Daya case’s decision wasn’t presented during the Zombade case’s deliberations, resulting in conflicting outcomes.
“To establish authoritative judicial pronouncements on the issue, it’s imperative to address the importance of judicial consistency,” reasoned the judge in justifying the reference.
CASE TITELE: Lincen Louis Thommana & Ors v. Leena Lincen Thommana & Anr.
