Application Under Section 12 Of Domestic Violence Act Not Barred By Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC: Karnataka HC

What Is The Case

● The Karnataka High Court has ruled that an application filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act is not barred by the Criminal Procedure Code's section 468 term of limitation.

● Justice KS Mudagal presided over a single bench "Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is inapplicable because the application under Section 12 of the DV Act is not protected by the word "offence."

● As a result, applying Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. to an application made under Section 12 of the DV Act is obviously incorrect."

Details Of The Case

● The court made the ruling while hearing a petition filed by one Puttaraju challenging an order issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on April 11, 2016, directing him to pay Rs 8,000 per month in maintenance and house rent to his wife and children.

● The order directing him to deposit Rs 4,32,000 was challenged by the husband. The money was ordered to be moved to the magistrate court, from which the wife could withhold it.

● The wife lodged an application to withdraw the funds, to which the husband objected on the grounds that the petition was filed ten years after the alleged domestic incident.

Court’s Order

● The court pointed out that Sections 468 (1) and 468(2)(b) of the Cr.P.C. prove that the statute of limitations for taking cognizance is linked to an offence.

● Only where there is an offence does Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. come into play. There is no restriction if there is no offence.

● Domestic abuse is not named or regarded as an offence under Section 12 of the DV Act, according to the Court. It refers to a court's decision to grant relief rather than a conviction and sentence.

● According to the ruling, "To be covered by Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., the alleged act must be a crime. The offence is not specified in the DV Act, as it is in Section 40 of the IPC."

● "Section 12 of the DV Act is just an enabling provision to initiate an inquiry to find out if such act or omission is committed," Justice Mudgal said.

● Finally, it concluded with: "Only a violation of a protection order, temporary protection order, or other order issued under Section 12 of the DV Act is considered a crime and is punishable under Section 31 of the Act. As a result, it is clear that the act or omission contemplated by Section 31 of the DV Act is a crime, but that the application under Section 12 of the DV Act is not."

What do you think about the case?