Res Judicata does not apply to domestic violence cases where the circumstances justify filing a second petition: J&K High Court

Dismissal of a petition challenging the lower court’s decisions Justice Sanjay Dhar reiterated the special and remedial nature of proceedings under the Data Protection Act and stated:

“The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to res judicata or even principles having the character of res judicata cannot be applied to the proceedings under the DV Act, especially in a case in which the injured person has explained the circumstances.” that they the filed the second petition after withdrawing the earlier petition.”

These observations followed a petition filed by respondent Davinder Kour under Section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws, alleging several counts of domestic violence. She claimed she was subjected to physical, emotional and economic abuse, including being ridiculed for insufficient dowry and being forced to make illegal demands for money.

Earlier, Davinder had filed a similar petition but withdrew it due to assurances from her husband and in-laws that she would be welcomed back into the matrimonial home. However, after retreating, her in-laws broke their promise and demanded ₹30,000, which eventually forced her out of the house. Subsequently, Davinder filed a fresh petition under the DV Act detailing these developments.

The plaintiffs, Sardul Singh and Kirpal Kour, the in-laws, moved for dismissal of this second petition on the ground that it was rejected res judicata. They also argued that there was no “domestic relationship” between them and the defendant because she left the marital home in 2016.

The defendant argued that its earlier withdrawal was due to representations made by the plaintiffs that were subsequently not kept. She stressed that the abusive actions continued and required a second petition. The defendant also pointed out that the withdrawal and the reasons for it were fully disclosed in its application.

Examining the available materials, the court noted the circumstances that led to the withdrawal of the first petition and noted that the defendant had re-applied its reasons for withdrawing the earlier petition and the subsequent events that led it to re-apply to turn to justice. The court noted that the petitioners’ failure to fulfill their promises and their consequent abusive behavior justified their new petition.

In its opinion on the allegations of domestic violence, the court concluded that the defendant’s allegations were specific and serious and included physical, emotional and economic abuse. Both the court of first instance and the court of appeal agreed that these allegations met the threshold for proceedings under the Data Protection Act.

“The trial judge as well as the Court of Appeal have agreed that the allegations made by the defendant against the plaintiffs are specific in nature and that they constitute incidents of domestic violence against the defendant. Therefore, this court would not be at liberty to take a different view of the matter within the scope of its supervisory powers.”noted the court.

Taking into account the applicability of Res Judicata or similar principles of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to DV Act proceedings, particularly if the aggrieved person presents the circumstances justifying a subsequent application. The court found that the defendant had substantiated its claims regarding the earlier revocation and subsequent filing.

The court emphasized that the DV Law aims to provide relief to women subjected to abuse and ensure their protection and technical objections res judicata should not hinder its remedial goals.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that there had been no “domestic relationship” between them and the defendant since she left the matrimonial home in 2016, clarifying that a “domestic relationship” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the DV Act includes people who lived together in a common household at all times.

“Even if the respondent left the common household in 2016, the fact remains that she previously lived in the same household with the plaintiffs. “There was therefore a domestic relationship between the parties,” The court claimed.

In accordance with these findings, the court found that the petition was without merit and dismissed it.

Case Title: Sardul Singh vs. Davinder Kour

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 314

Click here to read/download the judgment