Madras High Court:  G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., quashed the proceedings filed under the Domestic Violence Act in light of being barred by limitation.

The instant petition was filed to quash the Domestic Violence proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, due to some misunderstanding between the two, the respondent left the matrimonial home and went to her parents home.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, whereas the respondent on the other hand also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

Petitioner’s Counsel contended that the Domestic Violence proceedings were filed only to harass the petitioner and escape from the legal proceedings.

Domestic Violence complaint was filed after the lapse of 1 year 10 months, therefore barred by limitation, and Magistrate ought not to have been taken cognizance under the DV Act.

In view of the above, the DV proceedings need to be quashed.

Bench relied on the decision in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, (2011) 12 SCC 588 wherein it was held that, under Sections 28 and 32 of the DV Act, 2005 read with Rule 15(6)of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable.

“…the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure applicable and stand fortified.”

Therefore, the respondent ought to have lodged the complaint within a period of 1 year from the date of the incident.

Hence, the complaint lodged against the petitioner under the DV Act cannot be sustained. [N. Prasad v. Harithalakshmi, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1767, decided on 20-07-2020]

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court



  • Thank you SCC Online and Respected Devika mam for updating us . You have extracted the
    core of the judgments. Very Precise. Indian judges are known to be very verbose. Still you sumrised the essential of judgment in very precise words.
    Mam please write a detailed blog on how to read and extract ratio of judgment from lengthy judgment.
    Madras high court is truly proving to be a charterd high court.
    Adv. Sanjay Bhate
    Mumbai, Thane

  • Earlier Honble HC Madras has given a similar judgement in V NAGARAJAN & OTHERS Vs B P THANGAVENI (CRL.PET.11087/2017) which is squarely applicable on Law of Limitation U/a 468 of Cr.P.C.Both are certainly useful on Limitation.D K Brahma Naidu Advocate.Hyd.

  • @Devika madam, when searched for above said DV quashing judgement, by Hon. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, and case no mentioned at last article, was not finding on Madras HC website. Please guide me ,how to obtain it from Madras HC website.
    Best regards,

    • Hi, You can search for the said Judgment on the Madras High Court Website with the following case number: CRL OP.29476/2017.
      It is still better to get a subscription of SCC Online. We have everything in our database.

  • Nice Judgement

  • It is big relief to the husband and his family members. Nowadays to harass husband wife file false cases any time to extort money from husband. This judgement will stop extortion of money from husband.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.