Court Directs Expeditious Disposal of Domestic Violence Cases Within 60 Days, Rejects Preliminary Objection on Limitation as Misconceived
In a significant judgment dated October 30, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, clarified the applicability of limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). The Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by Chaudhary Manish Singh challenging the maintainability of his wife's application filed under Section 12 of the PWDVA, which sought reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Act.
The revisionist-husband contended that the application filed by the wife was barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC, which prescribes time limits for taking cognizance of offences. However, the Court held that Section 468 CrPC is confined to criminal offences and does not apply to civil or statutory reliefs sought under Section 12 of the PWDVA. The Court emphasized that the reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act - including protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation - are not offences but statutory remedies. Consequently, limitation under Section 468 CrPC cannot be invoked to bar such applications.
The Court further explained that offences under the PWDVA arise only upon breach of protection or interim protection orders as per Section 31, or failure of Protection Officers to discharge duties under Section 33. Since the present case involved only an application for relief under Section 12 and no protection order had been breached, the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC was not attracted.
In support of its reasoning, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022) 15 SCC 50, which clarified that filing an application under Section 12 does not amount to lodging a criminal complaint or initiating prosecution. The Court also cited a Division Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Reference in Re: Trilochan Singh v. Manpreet Kaur, which held similarly that Section 468 CrPC does not apply to proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDVA.
The Court criticized the revisionist's preliminary objection as a tactical move to delay proceedings, contrary to the object of the PWDVA which mandates expeditious disposal. Highlighting Section 12(5) of the Act, which requires courts to endeavour to dispose of applications within 60 days from the first hearing, the Court directed all courts handling domestic violence cases to adhere strictly to this timeline, including execution proceedings.
The Court's order also directs the Registrar to communicate the judgment to all relevant judicial officers in Agra and to the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, for academic dissemination, reinforcing the importance of timely adjudication in domestic violence matters.
This judgment strengthens the protective framework for women under the PWDVA by ensuring that procedural technicalities concerning limitation under criminal law do not impede the statutory rights and reliefs available to aggrieved persons. It underscores the civil nature of proceedings under Section 12 and the necessity of swift justice in domestic violence cases.
Bottom Line:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Application under Section 12 seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 is not a complaint for taking cognizance of an offence - Section 468 Cr.P.C. relating to limitation for cognizance of offences is not applicable - Limitation under Section 468 arises only in respect of offence of breach of protection order/interim protection order under Section 31 - Preliminary objection on limitation held misconceived and revision dismissed with direction for expeditious disposal of DV cases within 60 days.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 31, 32, 33; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 468
Chaudhary Manish Singh v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3008681
