Challenge To Interim Orders Under DV Act Maintainable U/S 528 Of BNSS Only If There Is Illegality Or Irregularity: Kerala High Court
The Kerala Excessive Court docket has just lately held {that a} petition looking for train of inherent powers to put aside an interim order handed beneath Part 12(1) the Safety of Ladies from Home Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act/DV Act) just isn’t maintainable if the identical doesn’t undergo from any blatant irregularity or illegality.
Justice G. Girish noticed that as per the legislation laid down by the Supreme Court docket, Excessive Courts should train restraint in exercising inherent powers beneath Part 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
For context, as per Part 12(1) of the DV Act, an aggrieved individual or a Safety Officer could current an utility earlier than the Justice of the Peace looking for any aid offered beneath the Act and the Justice of the Peace can grant such reliefs after considering any home incident report acquired.
Part 528 BNSS offers for the inherent powers of the Excessive Courts, empowering them to cross orders in order to provide impact to any order beneath the BNSS, or to stop abuse of the method of any Court docket or to safe the ends of justice. The corresponding provision beneath the Cr.P.C. (Code of Prison Process) was Part 482.
The current petition was filed as a Prison Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C) earlier than the Excessive Court docket looking for to put aside an interim order handed by Grama Nyayalaya, Vellanadu. Nonetheless, the Registry famous a defect and didn’t quantity the case.
In line with the Registry, since there was an enchantment provision offered beneath Part 29 of the Act, the current petition beneath Part 528 BNSS was not maintainable.
The Court docket referred to the selections of the Apex Court docket in Vijayalekshmi Amma V.Okay.(Dr.) v. Bindu V. (2010), Naresh Potteries (M/s.) v. M/s. Aarti Industries and Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal.
Counting on the aforesaid selections, the Court docket noticed that Excessive Courts have to be sluggish and circumspect when exercising inherent powers in interfering with orders handed beneath Part 12(1) of the DV Act.
It remarked: “The essence of the legislation laid down within the aforesaid resolution is that solely in circumstances the place there may be manifest illegality and blatant irregularity of the proceedings, the Excessive Court docket might be justified in exercising the jurisdiction beneath Part 482 Cr.P.C. to unsettle the orders handed by the Justice of the Peace beneath the provisions of the PWDV Act.
…until the courtroom present restraint in exercising the jurisdiction beneath Part 482 Cr.P.C, whereas coping with the prayer for quashing proceedings beneath the PWDV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the PWDV Act, 2005, might be defeated.”
Noting that there is no such thing as a gross illegality or blatant irregularity within the current case, the Court docket refused to entertain the matter.
The Court docket discovered that the petitioner could method the identical courtroom for modifying or setting apart the order. In any other case, he could want an enchantment as per Part 29 of the DV Act.
Thus, the Court docket upheld the defect famous by the Registry and directed it to return the petition to the petitioner.
Case Title: Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 5751 of 2025 (Submitting No.)
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Counsel for the petitioner: M.R. Sarin
Counsel for the respondents: Public Prosecutor – R1
