New LIVE Course: Learn the Practical Nuances of IPR Drafting by Adv. Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

fighting back (exec)     22 September 2014

Dv to filed within one year, recent judgement by indore hc?

Can anyone share more information or news on this recent judgement which has been given by the indore HC regarding DV to be filed within one year?

there is only a paper cutting which is floating around on the internet. however if any member has any more information on this. then please share.


 20 Replies

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     22 September 2014

@ Author,

1. The correct view is that in case of decree of divorce, the limitation to file proceedings is only a year Ref.: Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab  [(2011) 12 SCC 588]. But reading down facts in your brief still the relationship of husband and wife is alive.

2. The Object of the D.V. Act, is to provide effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family.

3. So, it is held in number of HC's decisions  that in case of "subsisting relationship" of husband and wife, there is no limitation. Meaning thereby that the complaint under the DV Act, can be filed at any time as the physical and mental harassment within the family is a continuing offence.

1 Like

fighting back (exec)     22 September 2014

@TAJOBS....thanks for your reply, actually i was referring to this news post from the following website. however i could not find the specific judgement. 


The news is published by,

publication date is 19/09/2014,

judgement by shri hon jarat kumar jain,  indore high court

parties: kirti kolhe vs swapnil kolhi,

advocate: samir verma,

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     22 September 2014

Well if MP HC's bench at Indore has said so then it has made preponderous S. 468 CrPC 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 Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of Apex court in Ref.: Japani Sahoo Vs.. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty [AIR 2007 SC 2762] and Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida & Ors., [(2011) 6 SCC 508]..

Some months back I had the chance to interpret above Sections in this very Forum(s) which you may re-visit and draw your own discussion point accordingly.

Thus I cannot add more as various HC's interpret differently DV Act 'limitation (Mumbai HC says she cannot, Karnataka HC says she can and Delhi HC also says she can and Bench at Indore says based on your presented news reporting she can not and so on so forth are various interpretations given) and thus we will soon see a SLP being admitted in Apex court thy name 're-visit' LIMITATION.


[Last reply]

Jimmy (Manager)     23 September 2014

  • I faced DV in recent times and am aware of all the judgements in this area. There are many and though they, in the eyes of half-baked advocates, appear to contradict each other, a careful reading shows that they are more or less consistent. That is important is to understand the facts of each judgement. Here is an example. Tajobsji says:  "The correct view is that in case of decree of divorce, the limitation to file proceedings is only a year." Wrong... wrong wrong. You need to understand the law and facts on which the judgement rests. After divorce you can continue to be in a domestic relationship and the one year time limit for filing will not apply. Or you may not be divorced and yet not be in a domestic relationship with your wife for more than a year and the limitation will apply. 
  • Fighting back's question is therefore very relevant. The judgement is important to know the facts to which it has been applied. When arguing, one must not only quote the final conclusion of the judgement cited but also the facts of the case.  
1 Like

fighting back (exec)     23 September 2014

thanks jimmy for you comments on my article. since such judgements, which are very rare to find to support harrassed males, must be studied in great detail for strong defence of innocent men, i am trying to collate such judgements, if you come across this indore court judgement then please post here, as i am not able to find it on the website of the MP high court

Jeevan (Finance)     06 October 2014

Were you able to find the case number? I am also unable to find on MP high court website


rattan lal (sssa)     04 November 2014

the judgement is not traceable by jarat kumar jain indore high court madhya pradesh in swapnil kohli verses kirti kohli date of decision is 26/08/2014. please supply

Jeevan (Finance)     04 November 2014

I posted judgement in a separate thread. please check. 

sandeep (pvt service)     04 November 2014

@jeevan.........can you please provide the link to your thread where you have posted this judgement..the judgemnet is no where to be seen posted by you..................

sandeep (pvt service)     04 November 2014 have not posted this judgement in any of your threads.....please dont fool other members.....

fighting back (exec)     04 November 2014

hello mr jeevan........ share the judgement again. if you have posted it? where have you posted this particular judgement?

Jeevan (Finance)     10 November 2014

Sorry, I uploaded and posted the link here which is expired now, please see some discussion at the bottom of the page. the jundgement is not very useful for fighting based on timeline


@Sandeep, your choice of words are unfortunate. 

maxx (pvt service)     10 November 2014

@jeevan.......can you please comment as to why the judgement is not useful..i read the article in the newspaper..i think it is useful..the discussion link you have given is not opening..if you have read the link then can you please comment on it.....thanks

Jeevan (Finance)     10 November 2014

Maxx, copied from there, look forward to more comments from learned members here


@rsaxena. I read both the judgements . I am not a lawyer, but I don't think that MP judgement can be used to argue for quashing of DV complaint based on delay in filing a complaint. Also it does not support Dalvi judgement, at least not completely. 

Here is why 

1.) This is most important. The reason that the judge quashed DV complaint was because of this
a.) FIR filed by complainant was quashed by Supreme court 
b.) Contents of DV complaint were exactly the same as that of FIR
c.) No allegations of Domestic Violence was made between the duration when the FIR was filed and DV complaint was filed.

So, what the judge is saying that if SC thinks FIR was bullsh*t then this DV complaint is bullsh*t too

2.) Regarding the time delay, the judge is of the following opinion 
a.) DV act by itself doesn't lay down any restrictions 
b.) Although it is guided by CrPC, Section 468 of CrPC does not apply here (In my opinion, that's because DV act is in principle a civil act, and CrPC 468 tries to map cognizance in a case with the punishment duration of an offence and time delay in filing the complaint)
c.) The Judge agrees in principle with the Dalvi judgement that the complaint should be filed within reasonable timeframe 

So, while the MP judge agrees in principle, it says unequivocally that there is no technical limitation for time limit in filing a DV complaint. Moreover, one thing to note is that in Dalvi judgement the wife hadn't filed any complaint (no NC, no 498a) whatsoever during the duration they were separated. So judge took the view that if you are separated for sucha long duration, the domestic relationship doesn't exist anymore. Hence the act doesn't apply. (In my opinion)

This is just my interpretation, you would want to take it with a pinch of salt.
1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register