- In Shilpa Singh vs. Vikas Khanna (2022), Justice Yashwant Varma stated that to prevent disputes and repugnancy, the two conflicting acts, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Family Courts Act, 1984, must be interpreted harmoniously.
- In this case, an application challenging order on the ground of the restraint, levied by the Court dealing with the application made under the DV Act, 2005, was filed by the wife. The Family Judge issued the order as the charges made against the husband were made by the wife under the DV Act, and no cruelty or physical abuse claims were made against the husband concerning the children. Furthermore, it was observed that the respondent was barred from contacting his children or the complainant in any way due to the order issued in the PWDV proceedings. It was also stated that the respondent would not interfere with the custody of the children.
- The PWDV Act 2005, adopted in 2005, was enacted to protect women from domestic violence.
- The Family Courts Act of 1984 was created to allow for the formation of Family Courts to encourage conciliation and ensure the prompt resolution of disputes relating to marriage and family issues and topics related to it.
- In a relevant case, Amit Kumar and another v. Charu Makin, it was observed that the Act of 1984 was specifically created so that matters referred to in the explanation to Section 7 of the Act could be dealt with by the Special Courts established for that purpose. In contrast, the object of enactment of the Act of 2005 was to protect women from becoming victims of domestic violence and to avoid the occurrence of domestic violence in society.
- In another notable case, Payal Agarwal v. Kunal Agarwal, it was ruled that the purview of the Act of 1984 is substantially broader than Section 21 of the Act of 2005. Since the non-obstante phrase employed in Section 21 of the Act of 2005 does not refer to any specific legislation of a particular act but rather is generic in nature, the Court must narrowly assess the limit of its application. Furthermore, the legislation states that when a non-obstante clause is employed in the aforementioned manner, the degree of its influence must be determined by taking into account the aim and purpose of inserting such a phrase.
- Thereafter, the Hon'ble Court held that the order would not interfere with the Family Court's jurisdiction to consider the temporary visiting rights of the minor child's father. Furthermore, it noted that the provisions of the PWDV do not deprive the Family Judge of the authority to make the arrangements stated in the contested order. Therefore, the scope of the two conflicting legislation must be understood in a way that avoids dispute.
- Thus, the Hon'ble Delhi HC dismissed the plea.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
