The Supreme Court has recently criticized trial courts for issuing bailable warrants in domestic violence cases, stating that such actions are unwarranted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). Justice Sandeep Mehta observed while addressing a petition related to a magistrate court’s decision to issue a bailable warrant in a domestic violence case.
Justice Mehta underscored that proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal and carry no penal consequences unless a protection order is violated. In a strongly worded statement, the Court remarked:
“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 with no penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner.”
The remarks were made in the context of a petition filed by a woman seeking the transfer of a domestic violence case initiated by her mother-in-law from the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Tis Hazari, Delhi, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Ludhiana.
The petitioner informed the Court about her dire circumstances, including her role as the sole caregiver for her specially-abled minor son, her unemployment, and her financial dependence on her father. She also pointed out that the magistrate court in Delhi had unjustly issued bailable warrants against her.
The Supreme Court observed that issuing such warrants was inappropriate and noted that divorce proceedings initiated by the petitioner’s husband had already been transferred to a family court in Ludhiana.
Granting her petition, the Court ordered the transfer of the domestic violence case to the Ludhiana Magistrate Court. It further directed that video conferencing facilities be made available for the parties at the Ludhiana Court if needed.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Asawari Sodhi and Advocate-on-Record Zehra Khan.
This ruling highlights the Supreme Court’s stance on the misuse of judicial processes in domestic violence cases and underscores the need for trial courts to adhere strictly to the provisions of the DV Act.
