Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho has observed that though Section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act permits an aggrieved person, Protection Officer, or any person acting on their behalf to approach a Magistrate seeking reliefs, and Section 12(5) mandates the Magistrate to endeavour disposal within sixty days of the first hearing, strict adherence may not always be practical. However, the Court directed that unnecessary and prolonged adjournments must be avoided, ordering conclusion of the pending proceedings within six months.

The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhubaneswar to conclude a pending proceeding within a fixed time frame by conducting day-to-day hearings. The proceeding in question arose from an application filed by the wife against her husband and his relatives under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act.

Also Read: High Court's Contempt Jurisdiction Not Extinguished By Doctrine Of Merger When SC Merely Affirms Without Fresh Directions: Supreme Court

A status report dated 28.01.2026 was submitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhubaneswar detailing the adjournments in the matter. The report indicated that the case had been transferred to the concerned court on 02.07.2025 when it was posted for cross-examination of the wife. It further recorded that except on two dates when counsel for the husband remained absent, the case had been adjourned at the instance of the wife or her counsel.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 12(5) read with Section 28(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, applications filed under Section 12(1) should ordinarily be disposed of within sixty days from the first date of hearing. It was contended that the proceedings had been prolonged due to repeated filings and petitions by the opposite party after obtaining interim relief, resulting in delay in completion of evidence and disposal of the case.

The Court observed, “Both the parties are filing multiple petitions on almost every date of adjournment and are also pressing more for disposal of the petition rather than for conclusion of evidence.”

It further recorded, “Before disposal of one petition, another 2 to 3 petitions get added for consideration and the case gets lingered for disposal of the petitions.”

The Court also noted from the status report that the filing of repeated petitions had caused difficulty in progressing the matter and delayed the proceedings. The report stated, “Hence filing of such multiple petitions is creating a lot hardship in further proceeding of this case and its speedy disposal.”

Considering the statutory framework, the Court recorded the object of the Domestic Violence Act and the legislative intention behind expeditious disposal of such proceedings. It stated, “The D.V. Act has been enacted with the object of providing effective rights of protection to the women guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, who are victim of any kind of violence within the family.”

Referring to Section 12(5) of the Act, the Court stated, “The provision under Section 12(5) of the Act has been inserted with the intention for expeditious disposal of application filed under Section 12(1) of the D.V. Act.”

While acknowledging the statutory expectation of early disposal, the Court recorded practical considerations involved in such proceedings. It stated, “It may not be possible or practical to dispose of the application within 60 days, but endeavour should be made for expeditious disposal, without depriving any of the parties of effective hearing.”

The Court also observed the impact of repeated adjournments on the progress of the proceedings. It stated, “If unnecessary or long adjournments are granted, to either party, the case will continue to linger.”

Also Read: S.35 (3) BNSS | Mandating Accused To Appear At Police Station In Regular Intervals Such As Every 15 Days Exceeds Scope Of Notice Power: Orissa High Court

The Court directed: “the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar is requested to make endeavour to dispose of CMC No. 40 of 2022 within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.  For the said purpose unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to the Parties.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Bibhu Prasad Mohanty, Advocate

Case Title: SKS v PS
Case Number: CRLMP No. 86 of 2026
Bench: Justice Savitri Ratho