Personal appearance not mandatory in pwdva cases

Navrose Singh and others vs State of Haryana and another_On 25–03–2010

“It is made clear that under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not statutory obligation of the respondents to personally appear before the Court or to furnish bail bonds for appearance. The appearance of respondents under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is not the requirement of law unless and until, the Court exercises discretion to direct the parties to appear in person for some specific purpose. It is the wish of the petitioners either to appear in person or engage a counsel and pursue the proceedings….”

Vinod_M._vs_Namitha_on_11_August,_2008

5. The petitioners have a further grievance that the learned C.J.M is unnecessarily insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioners who include the mother in law and two sisters in law. It is submitted that unnecessary insistence on such personal appearance is causing vexation and hardship to the petitioners.

6. I fail to understand how, why and under what circumstances such personal appearance is insisted by the learned C.J.M. It is trite that even though proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are initiated before a criminal court, the relief claimed is essentially and in its core, civil in nature. Evidently in the interests of Crl.M.C. No.3016 of 2008 4 expedition, the Parliament has thought it fit to entrust the responsibility of operating the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the criminal adjudicatory structure. But that cannot