Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Alisha Berry V. Neelam Berry has held that domestic violence act cases have no penal consequence except for breach of protection order. 

What was the Background of the Alisha Berry V. Neelam Berry Case? 

• This matter involves a domestic dispute between Alisha Berry (daughter-in-law) and Neelam Berry (mother-in-law). 
• Neelam Berry (respondent) had filed a case against Alisha Berry under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV) in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.  
• Alisha Berry (petitioner) has a specially abled minor son who suffers from hearing impairment. 
• The petitioner is currently unemployed and financially dependent on her father for survival. 
• There are concurrent divorce proceedings between Alisha Berry and her husband, which were previously transferred from Family Court, West, Tis Hazari, New Delhi to Family Court, Ludhiana District Court, Punjab through Transfer Petition.  
• The Trial Court had issued bailable warrants against Alisha Berry (petitioner) on 6th February 2024. 
• The current petition was filed by Alisha Berry seeking transfer of the domestic violence case from Delhi to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, Punjab. 
• Despite being served notice, the respondent (Neelam Berry) did not appear or have representation before the Supreme Court in this transfer petition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Trial Court's decision to issue bailable warrants, stating there was "no justification whatsoever" for issuing such warrants in a Domestic Violence Act case. 
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not carry penal consequences except in cases where there is a violation or breach of a protection order. 
  • The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the learned Magistrate was "absolutely unjustified" in directing the issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner. 
• The Supreme Court considered several factors in making its decision:  
  • The submissions were made by the petitioner's counsel. 
  • The available material on record. 
  • The fact that related divorce proceedings had already been transferred to Ludhiana. 

What is a Protection Order? 

• Protection order is defined under Section 2 (o) of the DV Act which states that: 
• Protection order means an order made in terms of Section 18. 
• Section 18 of the DV Act States the Power of Magistrate to prohibit the respondent from committing certain acts (after providing opportunity of being heard) by giving Protection Orders as: 
  • Committing any act of domestic violence. 
  • Aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence. 
  • Entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if the person aggrieved is a child, its school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person. 
  • Attempting to communicate in any form, whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact. 
  • Alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate. 
  • Causing violence to the dependents, other relatives or any person who gives the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence. 
  • Committing any other act as specified in the protection order. 
• As per Section 21 of the DV Act the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order, grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf. 
• Sub section (1) of Section 25 of DV Act states that a protection order made under section 18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge. 

What is Breach of Protection Order? 

• Section 31 of the DV Act states that a breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act. 
  • Shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.  
• The offence under sub-section (1) of Section 31 shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused.  
• While framing charges under sub-section (1), the Magistrates may also frame charges under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions.