Court Can Allow Evidence On Affidavit In Its Discretion In DV Act Case: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has held that a court can deviate from the procedure mentioned under Sub Section (1) of Section 28 read with Rule 6(5) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act and devise its own procedure which would include permitting evidence by way of an affidavit.

The Court made this observation while dealing with a plea against the decision of the Lower Court rejecting the request to discard examination in chief on affidavit.

Justice Samir J Dave observed “…this court is of the view that Court can allow evidence on affidavit in its discretion and while considering the aims and objects of the D.V. Act including the scope of Section 28(2), court can deviate from procedure mentioned under Sub Section (1) of Section 28 read with Rule 6(5) and devise its own procedure which would include permitting evidence by way of an affidavit and thus, the learned trial court as well as learned first appellate court have not committed any error in passing impugned orders and therefore, both the impugned orders are ordered to be confirmed”

The brief facts are that respondents No.2 and 3 filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and in that matter respondents No.2 and 3 filed an application under Section 23 of the Act seeking interim relief and after hearing both the parties, JMFC, Talala partly allowed the application of the respondents no.2 and 3 directing the applicants herein to pay maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent no.3 till final disposal of the application filed under Section 12 of the Act.

Thereafter, the applicants herein filed their written objections and requested to discard the examination in chief on affidavit filed by the respondents no.2 and 3 herein and sought directions to give their oral submissions before the court.

This application came to be rejected.

Advocate RC Kakkad appeared for the applicant and APP MH Bhatt appeared for the State.

The High Court observed that “A plain reading of these provisions clearly indicates that the DV Act provides effective protection to women, who are victims of domestic violence. The Act prescribes mandatory time limit for fixing the date of hearing, service of notice and disposal of the application with an intent and object of providing expeditious and speedy relief to the aggrieved women.”

Thus the Court held that the court can deviate from the procedure mentioned under Sub Section (1) of Section 28 read with Rule 6(5) and devise its own procedure which would include permitting evidence by way of an affidavit.

Accordingly, the plea was rejected.

Cause Title- Samirkumar Chandubhai Joshi v. State Of Gujarat

Click here to read/download Order