The Delhi High Court.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: A litigant cannot be allowed to take for granted the proceedings initiated before a court by a victim of domestic violence, the Delhi High Court has said.
The High Court said the Domestic Violence (DV) Act was enacted to provide more effective protection for the rights of women, who are victims of violence occurring within the family, granted under the Constitution.
Justice Amit Mahajan made the observations while dismissing a man's plea challenging a sessions court order which had upheld a magisterial court's July 2022 ex-parte order directing him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 6,000 to his wife.
The magisterial court's order was passed on the wife's petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the husband and his family members.
"A litigant cannot be allowed to take for granted the proceedings before the court, especially when the same relates to the proceedings initiated by the victim of domestic violence...
"The legislature, also noting the victimisation of women, has provided a mechanism for grant of maintenance to women who are not in a position to maintain themselves. Such proceedings cannot be taken in such a light manner as pleaded by the petitioner (husband)," the High Court said in an order passed earlier this month.
The man had claimed before the High Court that he came to know about the passing of the July 2022 sessions court order only in October 2022 when a police personnel came to inform him that the matter was listed before the court on November 1, 2022, in the execution petition filed by his wife.
It noted that the man, however, did not appear before the executing court and filed an appeal challenging the July 2022 order before the appellate court.
The appellate court stayed the earlier order subject to the husband paying 50 per cent of the maintenance.
The high court rejected the man's claim and said he had, on his own volition, stopped appearing before the magistrate. The magistrate proceeded ex-parte and thus, it cannot be argued that he was not aware of the order passed by the trial court and came to know about it only in October 2022.
"The explanation provided by the petitioner for his non-appearance before the magistrate is unmerited," it said.
The High Court said the husband being aware and having appeared in the proceedings before the trial court cannot be allowed to argue that he was not aware of the final judgement.
"The present petition is also filed belatedly in the month of October 2023. The petitioner also has admittedly not complied with the order passed by the trial court and only partially complied with the interim order passed by the appellate court. The conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him for any relief," it said.