SC: Can't penalise a domestic violence victim for delays

She filed a domestic violence complaint. Her right to present evidence was closed. When she got it reopened, the court said—pay Rs 20,000 per witness and lose your maintenance.

It was a simple enough order on paper. But for the woman, who had accused her husband and in-laws of domestic violence, it meant this: she could have her day in court only if she could afford it. The trial court — a magistrate's court handling proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — had closed her right to lead evidence, a procedural step that effectively ended her case. The exact reasons for the closure are not recorded in the Supreme Court judgment, but the pattern is familiar: the complainant failed to appear on scheduled dates, or failed to produce witnesses, or simply let the case drift. In an adversarial system, courts eventually tire of waiting. The silence in the courtroom when the magistrate closed her evidence must have been heavy, the file on the desk thin with unanswered summons.

The woman appealed. The appellate court — a sessions court in Delhi — agreed to reopen the matter but attached a price: Rs 20,000 for every witness she wanted to call, and no interim maintenance (monthly financial support during the case) while she gathered her evidence. For a woman who had already alleged domestic violence and financial dependence, this was a double blow. She couldn't afford the cost of witnesses, and she couldn't afford to lose the maintenance that kept her alive while the case dragged on. The weight of that Rs 20,000 order must have pressed down on her like a stone — a sum that, for a financially dependent woman, could mean months of rent or food.

She challenged these conditions before the Delhi High Court. In an order dated August 2, 2022, the High Court reduced the per-witness cost to Rs 10,000 but refused to touch the maintenance bar. The message was clear: you want to proceed, you pay. The woman, now at the end of her legal rope, walked into the Supreme Court with a single question: Could a court punish a domestic violence victim for delays that may not have been entirely her fault?

When the complaint fell silent

The case — Bhawna v. Bhay Ram and Others — began, as most do under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (a law designed to protect women from abuse in shared households), with a woman walking into a magistrate's court. She named her husband and her in-laws. She sought protection, maintenance, and a safe space to live. But somewhere along the way, the proceedings stalled. The trial court closed her right to lead evidence and rejected the complaint — likely because she did not appear or proceed on scheduled dates.

The woman appealed to the sessions court (the appellate court that hears challenges to magistrate orders). That court allowed her appeal. It reopened the case. But it did so with conditions that turned the victory sour.

The price of a second chance

The appellate court ordered that the woman could examine her witnesses only if she paid Rs 20,000 per witness into the court. And during the period she was gathering evidence, she would receive no interim maintenance from her husband.

The woman challenged these conditions before the Delhi High Court. The High Court, in an order dated August 2, 2022, reduced the per-witness cost to Rs 10,000 but refused to touch the maintenance bar. The message was clear: you want to proceed, you pay.

Why the Supreme Court stepped in

The woman filed a Special Leave Petition (a request for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a High Court order) before the Supreme Court. The bench — Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal — heard her on February 17, 2023. The courtroom must have been still as the bench's brief, sharp exchange with counsel unfolded, the only sound the rustle of paper and the low murmur of arguments.

The court's reasoning was sharp and brief. It held that imposing onerous conditions (unreasonably heavy burdens) on a complainant who claims to be a victim of domestic violence is not permissible in law. Such conditions, the court said, "amount to penalties for not prosecuting the case diligently" — and a victim cannot be penalised for procedural delays.

The court noted that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a beneficial legislation — a law designed to protect and support victims, not to punish them for failing to navigate a complex legal system perfectly. The full weight of the court's ratio decidendi (its central reasoning) was this: in a complaint under the DV Act, it is not open to any court to impose onerous conditions upon the complainant. Costs per witness and denial of interim maintenance amount to penalties for not proceeding with the trial — and are impermissible in law.

What the court actually ordered

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal entirely. It set aside the portion of the appellate court's order and the High Court's order that imposed costs on the woman for examining each witness. It also struck down the condition that deprived her of interim maintenance during the evidence period.

The trial court was directed to permit the woman to lead evidence without imposing any onerous conditions. The court also ordered that the physical presence of the parents-in-law — who were among the accused — would be dispensed with, meaning they didn't need to appear in court personally unless specifically required.

The judgment, cited as 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148, was delivered in Criminal Appeal No. of 2023, arising from SLP(Criminal) No. 1090 of 2023. The operative order was clear: "The appeal is allowed. The portion of the order of the Appellate Court and the High Court imposing cost upon the appellant for examination of every witness and depriving the appellant of interim maintenance is set aside. The trial court shall permit the appellant to lead evidence without imposing onerous conditions. Physical presence of the parents-in-law shall be dispensed with."

The principle that matters

The ratio decidendi (the court's central reasoning) is straightforward: in a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not open to a court to impose onerous conditions on the complainant. Costs per witness and denial of interim maintenance amount to penalties for not proceeding with the trial — and are impermissible in law.

For practitioners, this judgment is a reminder that procedural orders must not defeat the purpose of the substantive law. A domestic violence case is not a commercial dispute. The victim is not a plaintiff who can absorb costs. The court's job is to facilitate access to justice, not to gatekeep it with financial hurdles.

THE PLAY: If a court imposes costs or maintenance bars on a DV complainant for procedural delays, challenge it immediately — the Supreme Court has now made clear that such conditions are impermissible penalties.

The woman walked out of the Supreme Court with her case alive, her witnesses free, and her maintenance intact. The court ended where it began: with a victim who deserved a hearing, not a bill.