The Supreme Court in the case observed and has set aside a condition which is imposed by the Delhi High Court, wherein the court allowed the victim of domestic violence which may lead to evidence during trial subject for payment of Rs.20,000 as per
the witness.
The bench comprising of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the case observed and has held the it is not being open to the court to place such “onerous conditions”. Therefore, apart from being impermissible in law, the said condition is more like a penalty for the appellant and the same not being proceeding
with the trial.
The court observed that in a complaint which is being filed under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not being open to the court wherein imposing of such onerous conditions upon the appellant, who is being claimed to be a victim of domestic violence. What have been ordered by the Appellate Court and the High Court who being actually in the nature of penalty for the appellant not proceeding with the trial.
In the case, the appellant being the complainant who is registered under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, the appellant right to lead evidence was being closed and the same was being resulted in the rejection of the complaint.
The lead her to file an appeal. Thus, the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court, wherein the appeal directed the trial court to reopen the case and allow the appellant to lead evidence subject to her paying cost of Rs.20,000/- per witness. When the said appellant moved to the High Court challenging the said order, the cost was reduced to Rs.10,000 per witness. It has also been stated by the Apellant Court as well as the High Court that the appellant will not be entitled to maintenance during that period.
Further, the Top Court did not agree with the said view. The court then proceeded to set aside the portion of the order passed by the Appellate Court and the High Court wherein imposing the cost upon the appellant for examination of every witness and for depriving her from interim maintenance. Thus, it has also been directed by the Trial Court for permitting the to lead evidence without imposing any onerous conditions.
