We received a query regarding a distressing family situation involving a domestic violence (DV) case that has been languishing in the legal system since 2014. The matter involves Mr. Rohan Kapoor and his wife, Mrs. Anjali Kapoor, and is currently pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s court in the city of Amodpur.

The core issue is a significant delay caused by the wife’s side. Despite the court ordering interim maintenance, which Mr. Kapoor has been diligently paying, Mrs. Kapoor’s legal counsel has refused to file the crucial evidence affidavit. They claim this non-cooperation is due to alleged arrears in maintenance, a claim Mr. Kapoor refutes by providing records of consistent monthly payments and lump-sum payments to clear any past dues. This tactic has effectively stalled the proceedings for years, leaving Mr. Kapoor in a state of legal limbo and causing immense emotional and financial strain. It appears to be a strategy to prolong the case indefinitely, which is a misuse of the judicial process.

⚖️ Advice in such cases

When one party in a legal proceeding deliberately uses delaying tactics, it undermines the very foundation of justice. The principle of a speedy trial is a fundamental right of every litigant. In such a scenario, the aggrieved party is not helpless. The court has the power to prevent its process from being abused. The primary step is to proactively bring this issue to the court’s attention through a formal application, urging the court to proceed with the matter and conclude the trial.

📖 Applicable Sections of Law

While the case is under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the principles of civil and criminal procedure regarding speedy justice are highly relevant.

• The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA): This is the special legislation governing the case. Section 12 allows for an application to be made to the Magistrate, and the Act’s objective is to provide swift relief. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that proceedings under this Act should be concluded expeditiously.
• Procedural Law Principles (Reflected in BNSS): The spirit of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is to cut down on delays. While the PWDVA has its own procedure, principles can be borrowed. Courts can take an adverse inference against a party that fails to cooperate. If a complainant repeatedly fails to appear or lead evidence without sufficient cause, the court has the discretion to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution.
• Constitutional Right: Article 21 of the Constitution of India implicitly includes the right to a speedy trial. This applies to all legal proceedings, whether civil, criminal, or quasi-civil like a DV case.

🤵 If you are the complainant

In this situation, Mr. Kapoor (the respondent in the DV case) is the one being aggrieved by the delay. If you are in a similar position, here are the steps to take:

• Document Everything: Maintain a meticulous record of all maintenance payments made, including bank transfer details, dates, and amounts. This will be your primary evidence to counter the claim of non-payment.
• File a Formal Application: Instruct your lawyer to file a specific application before the Magistrate. This application should clearly state the history of the case, the date the evidence affidavit was due, the number of opportunities given, and the deliberate delay caused by the other side.
• Pray for Specific Relief: In the application, request the court to:
  1. Fix a final, “last opportunity” date for the petitioner (the wife) to file her evidence affidavit.
  2. State that if she fails to do so, her right to lead evidence should be closed.
  3. Request the court to proceed with the case based on the material already on record.
• Cite Legal Precedents: Your lawyer should cite judgments from the Supreme Court and various High Courts that condemn such delaying tactics and hold that non-payment of interim maintenance cannot be a ground to halt the trial itself. The courts have held that a wife cannot hold the proceedings hostage through non-cooperation.

👩‍⚖️ If you are the victim

If you are the original petitioner (the wife in this case) and your lawyer is advising such a strategy, it is important to understand the potential negative consequences. While receiving maintenance is your right, stalling the main case is counter-productive.

• It Delays Final Justice: Your primary goal is to get final orders for protection, residence, or compensation. Delaying the trial means you are also delaying your own final relief.
• It Can Annoy the Court: Judges are aware of such tactics. A court may take an adverse view of your conduct, which could impact the final outcome.
• Separate Remedies Exist: If maintenance is not being paid, the correct legal remedy is to file an execution petition to recover the arrears. It is a separate process and should not be used to stall the main trial.

👮 How the police behave in such cases

Proceedings under the PWDVA are quasi-civil in nature and are handled by a Magistrate, not the police. The police have a limited role. They do not investigate the complaint like a criminal FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Their involvement is typically limited to:

• Assisting the Protection Officer appointed under the Act.
• Executing orders passed by the Magistrate, such as a protection order or an order to evict the respondent from the shared household.
• Registering an FIR for breach of a protection order, which is a criminal offense.

In a situation of trial delay, the police have no role to play. The matter is entirely within the purview of the court.

❓ FAQs people normally have

What evidence is required?

To prove that the delay is intentional, the key evidence for Mr. Kapoor would be:

• Copies of the court’s order sheets showing the numerous dates given for filing the evidence affidavit.
• Bank statements and transaction records proving that maintenance has been paid regularly.
• A copy of the application filed to expedite the proceedings.

How long will the investigation take?

It’s important to clarify that there is no “investigation” by police in a PWDVA case. The case is decided by a Magistrate based on the application of the victim and the evidence presented by both parties. The Act itself, under Section 12(5), envisages that the Magistrate shall endeavor to dispose of every application within a period of 60 days from the date of its first hearing. However, in practice, delays are common. When one party actively stalls the proceedings, as in this case, the timeline can be stretched indefinitely unless the other party takes proactive steps to have the court enforce procedural timelines.

Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India