Physical Presence Not Necessary In Domestic Violence Act Proceedings : Supreme Court Quashes Magistrate's Order To Extradite Husband From US

Post By 24law
February 22, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has ruled that the personal presence of a party in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act is not required, as such proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. The Court emphasized that penal consequences arise only when there is a breach of a protection order under Section 31 of the Act. This decision came while quashing a Magistrate’s order directing the extradition of a husband residing in the United States.

Background of the Case

The appellant-husband, XXXXX, was residing in the USA when multiple proceedings were filed against him by his wife, XXXXXXXX, in India. His passport was impounded as a result of these cases. In one such domestic violence case, a Judicial Magistrate issued a notice to the appellant. When he failed to appear, the Magistrate ordered the initiation of extradition proceedings. The High Court of Calcutta subsequently upheld this order, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta held that the Trial Court had committed an error by directing the physical presence of the appellant: "We may observe that as the proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature, thus, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the appellant in these proceedings." The Court also took note of the fact that the appellant's passport had been impounded, making it impossible for him to travel to India. Recognizing this, the Court stated: "Consequently, the order of the learned JMFC directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the appellant as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of the passport of the appellant, is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law."

Violation of Natural Justice

The Supreme Court further noted that the impounding of the appellant's passport was illegal and violated principles of natural justice. Referring to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr., the Court reiterated that: "This clear violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act of impounding the passport ex-facie illegal. Consequently, we hold that the concerned authorities should release the appellant's passport within a period of one week from today."

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

During the proceedings, the appellant filed an application under Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. The Court examined the factors laid down in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel and found that: "The aforesaid facts give us the impression that there was hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship that flowed from the marriage between the parties. It is evident that the relationship between the parties appears to be strained from the beginning and has further soured over the years." Based on this assessment, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage.

Alimony and Settlement

Regarding financial settlement, the Court directed the appellant to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony: "Taking into account the standard of living enjoyed by the respondent during the subsistence of the marriage, the prolonged period of separation, and the financial status of both parties, an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs appears to be just, fair, and reasonable to be paid by the appellant to the respondent towards settlement of all pending claims and to cover permanent alimony."

Verdict

Thus, while quashing the impugned judgment, the Court also passed a direction that all the criminal cases and civil cases pending between the respondent and the appellant shall stand closed.