Not Mandatory to Seek Personal Presence under Domestic Violence Act Supreme Court Quashes Extradition and Passport Impounding Order

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying key aspects of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that personal presence of the parties is not mandatory in such cases since they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not attract penal consequences—except in cases where a protection order is breached under Section 31 of the Act. Alongside this, the Court dissolved the marriage between the parties citing irretrievable breakdown and also directed the release of the appellant-husband’s passport.

Domestic Violence Act: Passport Impounding Held Illegal

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta ruled that impounding the appellant-husband’s passport under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967, without granting him an opportunity to be heard, was in violation of natural justice. The Court declared the action as ex-facie illegal.

The bench further quashed the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, dated September 15, 2022, and the Calcutta High Court, dated January 25, 2023, which had affirmed initiation of extradition proceedings against the husband for non-appearance. The Court observed that the non-appearance stemmed directly from the impounding of his passport, a situation beyond his control. Therefore, the order initiating extradition proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act was held to be untenable in law.

Domestic Violence Act: Background of the Case

The marriage between the appellant-husband, a software engineer, and the respondent-wife was solemnized on February 19, 2018. After their wedding, the couple moved to the USA in March 2018. However, their relationship soured within 80 days due to allegations of abusive behavior. The husband even had to call the police twice in the USA. By May 2018, the husband returned to the USA alone while the wife stayed back in India and later filed around ten separate cases, including those under the Domestic Violence Act, in Muzaffarpur and Howrah courts.

Following these cases, the husband’s passport was impounded on October 3, 2018. Meanwhile, between 2018 and 2020, the wife resided with her mother-in-law in the matrimonial home. According to the husband, the wife mistreated his mother, forcing her to leave the house in 2020. This led to more litigation, including counter-cases by the mother-in-law. The wife also filed a case under Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, which included multiple family members of the husband as respondents. The magistrate subsequently ordered initiation of extradition proceedings due to the husband’s absence.

The husband challenged this before the High Court, which refused to interfere. He then approached the Supreme Court, urging relief from what he described as a vendetta of multiple cases filed with malicious intent.

Domestic Violence Act: Court’s Observations

The bench took exception to the impounding of the passport merely because the wife had filed numerous cases. Referring to Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) and Rajesh Sharma vs State of UP (2018), the Court noted that impounding passports or issuing Red Corner Notices against persons ordinarily residing abroad should not become routine in matrimonial disputes.

The Court further emphasized that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are quasi-criminal and do not automatically carry penal consequences. Penal liability arises only if a protection order is violated under Section 31 of the Act. Therefore, the absence of the husband from proceedings could not justify the harsh step of extradition.

The Court also highlighted that the High Court failed to evaluate the reasons behind the husband’s inability to appear, despite his passport being impounded. Such oversight, the bench noted, ignored the principles of natural justice.

Domestic Violence Act: Marriage Dissolved and Settlement Ordered

While addressing the larger dispute, the bench also invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. It dissolved the marriage, terming it a classic case of irretrievable breakdown. The couple had lived together only briefly, and bitterness had overtaken the relationship. The Court noted that multiple litigations by both sides showed there was no scope of reconciliation.

The Supreme Court directed the husband to pay Rs- 25 lakh as a one-time settlement to the wife to help her rebuild her life. Though the wife declined the monetary settlement, stating her only desire was to resume marital life, the Court considered closure essential to prevent prolonged harassment through endless litigations.

By directing the release of the passport within one week, dissolving the marriage, and ordering settlement, the Court sought to provide finality to the dispute.

Conclusion

This judgment provides clarity on how courts should approach proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. It makes clear that personal presence is not mandatory, passports cannot be casually impounded, and extradition should not be ordered mechanically. By dissolving the marriage under Article 142, the Supreme Court also reinforced its commitment to resolving cases of irretrievable marital breakdown in a just and equitable manner.

Case Title: [Vishal Shah Vs Monalisa Gupta & Ors]