No need to seek report on domestic violence,complaint is enough: HC

“A magistrate,when petitioned under Section 12 (1) of the Act is not obliged to call for and consider the Domestic Inquiry Report (DIR) before issuing notice to the respondent (husband and in-laws)… This court sees no need to do so since it would result in artificially curtailing what is otherwise a wide power,” the bench said.

The court found substance in advocate Prashant Katara’s argument that if the magistrates were to be constrained from issuing orders right away after prima facie appreciation of evidence,the remedy would be defeated and the victims would be subjected to further domestic violence,either in the form of deprivation of a home or subjected to physical cruelty or even deprivation of economic benefits.

Katara,who appeared for the victim in the case,also pointed to a provision that authorised a magistrate to pass ex-parte orders. He contended that had the legislative intent been to first call for a report,there could not have been a provision empowering a judge to pass an order in the absence of parties.

These arguments cut ice with the bench. “The Act being a beneficial one,the court should adopt a construction to its provisions which advances the parliamentary intention rather than confining it. If the latter course is adopted,the result would be to defeat the object of the law. As noticed earlier,domestic violence is per se not an offence but its incidence or occurrence enables a woman to approach the court for more than one relief,” it noted.

But in cases where the reports have already been placed on record,the bench said,a magistrate must go through it before passing orders.

“Thus,in all cases where the magistrate is in receipt of the DIR,he must take the same into consideration. This applies even at the stage of serving notice to the respondent. However,where DIR has not been prepared,or has not been submitted to the Magistrate,he is under no obligation to call for the same for consideration as a precondition to exercising his power,and making such orders as the justice and the facts of the case may warrant,” the bench said.