The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Section 468 Cr.P.C. on limitation does not apply to complaints for maintenance and other civil reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Consequently, the petition challenging limitation was dismissed.
Criminal Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6217 of 2012
DATE: 21.08.2012
Between:
Bonam Janaki Venkata Ramana Murthy and 2 others
And The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor and another
…..Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6217 of 2012
ORDER :
The petitioners are respondents 1 to 3 in D.V.C. No.17 of 2012 in the lower Court filed by the 2nd respondent/aggrieved person. The only point urged by the petitioners’ counsel basing on inderjit Singh Grewal V.
State of Punjab[1] of the Supreme Court is that the domestic violence case is barred by limitation. In that decision, the Supreme Court was considering application of procedure under Section 28 and taking cognizance and proof under Section 32 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short, the Act). No doubt, Section 468 Cr.P.C relating to limitation applies even in case of offences punishable under the Act. But the reliefs claimed in the case on hand are maintenance etc., under Section 20 of the Act. The 2nd respondent/complainant is not making any complaint against any of the respondents for any offences under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act. It is only in cases of complaining to the Magistrate against any of the respondents of committing offences under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act, then the question of taking cognizance under Section 32 of the Act arises, in which case the Magistrate has to apply the period of limitation provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. For entertaining a complaint under Section 12 of the Act relating to the reliefs claimed under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act, which deal with almost civil rights of the aggrieved person, the question of application of Section 468 Cr.P.C does not arise at all.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
August 21, 2012 ksh
[1] (2011)12 Supreme Court Cases 588
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 468 Cr.P.C. relating to limitation applies to complaints for maintenance relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Whether a domestic violence case filed under Section 12 of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is barred by limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
inderjit Singh Grewal V. State of PunjabExplained¶12
(2011)12 Supreme Court Cases 588
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Bonam Janaki Venkata Ramana Murthy
The State of A.P.
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
