The Delhi High Court holds that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act are applicable to each woman irrespective of religious affiliation or background.

The High Court of Delhi dismissed a petition under section 482 of the Cr. PC which petition had been filed against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the LD Additional Sessions Judge. 
A Domestic Violence petition had been preferred on behalf of respondent/complainant/wife which was dismissed in default by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.03.2023. An application preferred on behalf of the respondent / wife for restoration of the same before the learned Trial Court was also dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2023.
 
The aforesaid order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was thereafter challenged in appeal on behalf of the respondent/wife. The Ld. Appellate Court/ASJ vide impugned order dated 05.03.2024 observed that the absence of the respondent/wife has been explained and there were no sufficient grounds before the learned Trial Court to dismiss the petition on the basis of non-appearance on a single date. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court directed to restore the Domestic Violence petition.
 
The High Court held thus:

“Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman irrespective of religious affiliation or social background. The same was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of ‘domestic violence’ in ‘domestic relationship’.”

“There is no blemish in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court and for the cogent reasons, learned ASJ was duly satisfied with the explanation extended for non-appearance of respondent/counsel. It may be impressed upon that procedure is the handmaid of justice and is to come to the aid of justice rather than defeating it. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no grounds for interference in the impugned order are made out, since sufficient grounds have been shown by the respondent for restoration of proceedings.”
 

Gulshan Kumar & Anr. v. Nidhi Kashyap