The Supreme Court of India has ruled that personal appearance is not required in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), quashing a lower court’s order directing the extradition of a person residing in the United States. The apex court emphasized that such proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and do not necessitate the physical presence of the parties unless there is a breach of a protection order.
The case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute in which multiple legal proceedings had been initiated across different jurisdictions in India. The petitioner, who has been residing in the United States, was directed by a Judicial Magistrate in Howrah, West Bengal, to appear personally in response to a domestic violence complaint. Upon failure to do so, the Magistrate initiated extradition proceedings against him, a decision that was later upheld by the High Court of Calcutta.
Background of the Case
The marriage in question was solemnized in February 2018, and the couple moved abroad shortly thereafter. The relationship deteriorated within a short span, and disputes led to multiple legal actions being filed in various courts in India. The petitioner left the country in May 2018, and his passport was subsequently impounded in October 2018.
Following the breakdown of the relationship, legal proceedings were initiated under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the DV Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Dowry Prohibition Act. In one of the cases filed under the DV Act, the trial court issued an order requiring the petitioner’s personal presence. His failure to appear led to the issuance of extradition proceedings against him.
The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court, which upheld the decision. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.
Key Legal Issues Considered
The Supreme Court analyzed two primary legal issues:
Whether the personal presence of a party is mandatory in proceedings under the DV Act – The Court ruled that since such proceedings are quasi-criminal and do not result in penal consequences unless a protection order is breached, there was no requirement for the petitioner’s personal appearance.
Legality of extradition proceedings initiated against the petitioner – The Court found that extradition proceedings were unwarranted, particularly because the petitioner’s inability to travel was due to his passport being impounded by authorities.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the Magistrate had committed an error in directing extradition for a case that did not require physical presence. The Court stated:
“As the proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature, there cannot be any justification to require the personal presence of the petitioner in these proceedings.”
It further observed:
“The impounding of the passport was beyond the petitioner’s control, making it legally untenable to direct extradition solely on the ground of non-appearance.”
The Court also remarked that the High Court should have examined the reasons behind the petitioner’s absence instead of dismissing the revision petition with a non-speaking order.
Dissolution of Marriage and Settlement
During the proceedings, the petitioner sought dissolution of the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, citing irretrievable breakdown. The Court, referring to its earlier ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, held that when reconciliation is impossible, it has the discretion to grant divorce under its extraordinary powers.
Considering that the couple had cohabited for only 80 days and had been living separately for over five years, the Court declared that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. It directed the dissolution of the marriage while also ordering a one-time permanent alimony of ₹25 lakh to be paid by the petitioner.
Directions Issued by the Court
The Supreme Court issued the following directives:
The order of the Judicial Magistrate directing extradition and the High Court’s decision upholding it were quashed.
The marriage was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142.
The petitioner was directed to pay ₹25 lakh as permanent alimony within two months.
All pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties were closed.
Authorities were instructed to release the impounded passport within a week.
