Supreme Court criticises issuance of bailable warrants in domestic violence cases

The Supreme Court recently criticised the issuance of bailable warrants by trial courts in domestic violence cases. .Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while dealing with a case where a magistrate court issued a bailable warrant against one of the parties to a domestic violence case.Justice Mehta criticised the decision of the magistrate court, underscoring that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) do not incur penal consequences unless a party has violated a protection order. "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 which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was absolutely unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner," the Court said in its January 3 order. .The order was passed on a petition moved by a woman to transfer a domestic violence case filed by her mother-in-law from the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ludhiana. The petitioner-woman submitted that she has a specially-abled minor son, and that she is unemployed and entirely dependent on her father for survival. She also told the Court that that the magistrate court in Delhi had issued bailable warrants against her.The Supreme Court observed that the issuance of the warrant in such a case was unjustified. It also noted that the proceedings in the divorce case filed by the husband of the woman had already been transferred to a family court in Ludhiana.It, therefore, allowed the petition and ordered that the case be transferred to the Magistrate Court in Ludhiana. It also stated that parties may be allowed to use any video conferencing facilities that may be available at the Ludhiana Court. .The petitioner was represented by advocate Asawari Sodhi and Advocate-on-Record Zehra Khan.