Roasaheb Pandharinath Kamble v Shaila Rohasaheb Kamble, MANU/MH/1275/2010
The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and his relatives. Later she filed an application praying to make certain amendments in the petition. The husband prayed to the magistrate to present oral submissions to oppose the same but order was passed without such hearing. The husband filed a recalling application to the magistrate which was rejected. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal in the sessions court where too it was rejected. Thereafter the husband filed a writ petition in the High Court. Dismissing the husband’s petition, the Bombay High Court held that it is clear that the provisions of the DV Act are mainly made for giving relief to the affected women, due to domestic violence etc. In other words, the proceedings under the Act are of the quasi civil nature and in such proceedings, the court would have power to allow amendment in an application and written statement.
Kunapareddy v Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, MANU/SC/0628/2016
The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking protection, maintenance and compensation orders. The magistrate and the sessions court allowed the amendment to the original application by the wife wherein she had modified the reliefs sought in the application. The husband challenged the order before the High Court contending that the DV Act was governed by the CrPC which contained criminal procedure which did not permit amendments to the application. The Delhi High Court held that although section 28 (1) stated that the DV Act must be governed by the procedure under the CrPC, sub-section (2) empowers the courts to lay down its own procedure for disposal of the application to the Act. This provision has been incorporated by the legislature keeping in mind the object and purpose of the DV Act which was to provide speedy justice and avoid multiple complaints by the wife. In light of this, it has become an established principle of law, that amendments to an original application are permissible in cases where the lower courts deem fit.
It was further appealed in the Supreme Court where it was held that amendments of complaints or petitions filed under section 12 of the DV Act can be allowed. If the power to amend the complaint/application etc. is not read into the aforesaid provision, the very purpose which the Act attempts to sub-serve itself may be defeated in many cases.