The petition was filed by Alisha Berry, who sought the Court’s intervention as her mother-in-law, Neelam Berry, had filed the case under the D.V. Act.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the decision of a Magistrate to issue bailable warrants in a case filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court highlighted that the issuance of such warrants was unjustified, given the nature of the proceedings under the Act.
The Court stated that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act) are quasi-criminal in nature and do not have any penal consequences, except in cases where there is a violation or breach of a protection order.
This observation was made in the context of a petition seeking the transfer of a domestic violence case from Delhi to Ludhiana.
BRIEF FACTS
The petition was filed by Alisha Berry, who sought the Court’s intervention as her mother-in-law, Neelam Berry, had filed the case under the D.V. Act.
The petitioner, who has a specially-abled minor son suffering from hearing impairment, argued that she was fully dependent on her father for survival and was unemployed. The petitioner’s counsel further pointed out that the Court had issued bailable warrants against her, despite the fact that such warrants were unnecessary in this case.
The bench, led by Justice Sandeep Mehta, expressed its dissatisfaction with the trial court’s decision and made the following remarks:
“This Court is constrained to observe that there is no justification whatsoever for the Trial Court to have issued bailable warrants in an application filed under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal proceedings which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was absolutely unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner.”
The Supreme Court, after hearing the case, agreed with the petitioner’s argument and accepted her request for the transfer of the case. The Court ordered the transfer of the case from Delhi to Ludhiana, deeming the issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner to be unwarranted.
The petitioner’s legal team was represented by Ms. Asawari Sodhi, Adv., and Ms. Zehra Khan, AOR.
Case Title: Alisha Berry v. Neelam Berry
