The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Alisha Berry v. Neelam Berry (Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 856/2024), emphatically ruled that issuing bailable warrants in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is legally unjustified. The bench, led by Justice Sandeep Mehta, observed that the quasi-criminal nature of DV Act cases does not warrant such coercive measures unless a protection order is violated.
Case Background
The petitioner, Ms. Alisha Berry, a daughter-in-law of the respondent, Ms. Neelam Berry, sought the transfer of a case filed under the DV Act. The matter was originally pending before the Mahila Court at Tis Hazari, Delhi, and the petitioner requested its transfer to Ludhiana, Punjab, citing compelling personal circumstances. Ms. Berry, who is unemployed and caring for a specially-abled minor son with a hearing impairment, argued that appearing in Delhi for the proceedings posed significant challenges.
Her counsel, Ms. Asawari Sodhi, emphasized the undue hardship caused by the trial court’s issuance of bailable warrants against Ms. Berry on February 6, 2024, despite the nature of the DV Act proceedings.
Key Legal Issues
1. Legality of Bailable Warrants in DV Act Cases
The court considered whether bailable warrants could be issued in proceedings under the DV Act, which are primarily quasi-criminal and remedial in nature.
2. Jurisdiction for Transfer
The petitioner argued for the transfer of the case to Ludhiana, citing logistical challenges and the fact that related divorce proceedings had already been transferred to Ludhiana by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Sandeep Mehta clarified that proceedings under the DV Act do not typically result in penal consequences unless there is a breach of a protection order. He remarked:
“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 which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order.”
The Court highlighted the importance of ensuring that such proceedings remain focused on protecting and remedying the rights of aggrieved individuals without resorting to unnecessarily punitive measures.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition, directing the Mahila Court in Tis Hazari to transfer the case records to the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Ludhiana without delay. The Court also recommended utilizing video conferencing facilities, if available, to ease the process for the parties.
The order concluded with instructions for prompt compliance, emphasizing that pending applications related to the matter would stand disposed of.
