Case: Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari

. Respondent No. 1 herein, who is the wife of the appellant, has filed a case against the appellant and his family members before the Court of IInd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, West Godavari, Eluru under Sections 9B & 37(2)(C) of the DV Act which is registered as Domestic Violence Case No. 20/2008. It may be mentioned here that the said petition now stands transferred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile Court), Eluru and has been renumbered as DV Case No. 29/2012. In this case, respondent no. 1 has leveled various allegations against the appellant and his family members inter alia alleging that the appellant and his family members used to harass her physically as well as mentally and by also demanding dowry. It is further alleged that she was driven out from her matrimonial home in the month of March, 2015 and initially she took shelter at her brothers house along with the children in Eluru. Thereafter, on the appellant tendering an apology to respondent no. 1 by coming to Eluru they put up their family together in Gadam Ramakrishnas House at Ashok Nagar, Eluru,but the things did not change. The following prayers are made in the said petition:a) to provide protection to the life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondents;b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance;c) to grant such other relief or reliefs if the Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case4. Respondent no.1 has also filed a divorce petition before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, West Godavari, Eluru wherein she has made an application for interim maintenance as well. Thereafter, she also filed a maintenance petition under Sections 23(2) and 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Court of Family Judge, Eluru5. On receiving notice in DV Petition, family members of the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telengana and Andhra Pradesh for quashing the proceedings in the said DV Petition. This petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 17.04.2009 thereby quashing the domestic violence proceedings against the family members of the appellant on the ground that there was no specific allegations against them. After the DV Petition was transferred to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, respondent no. 1 filed an application seeking amendment of the petition. By way of the said amendment petition, respondent no. 1 wanted to amend the prayer clause by incorporating some more prayers, as is clear from the following amendment in this behalf which was sought by respondent no. 1:a) To provide protection to life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondentb) To grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and her 2nd child to their maintenance instead of Rs.5000/-c) Direct the respondent to return the Sridhana amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and other sari samanas and marriage batuvu presented to the respondent worth about 2 sovereigns wrist watch, 7 sovereign gold chain presented by the complainant and her parentsd) Direct the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the complaint for subjecting the compliant to physical and mental harassments besides including acts of Domestic Violencee) Direct the respondent to return the sari samans and other goods like worth more than Rs.10,00,000/- as per the list annexed herewithf) Direct the respondent to pay the cost of, litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- so far spent by the complainant persuing her litigationg) Direct the 1st respondent to provide separate residence by taking rent portion with monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-h) Directing the respondent to return the original study certificates, medical certificates, deposits certificates and receipts etc. in the prayer portion paragraphs the following amendment by deleting the prayer original para b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance6. The appellant herein opposed the said application. However, the learned Trail Court after hearing both the parties allowed the amendment. The appellant raised an objection that there was no power with the court to allow amendment of such a petition/complaint in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). This contention was rejected by the trial court on the premise that section 26 of the DV Act, which entitles a civil court, a family court or a criminal court as well to grant any relief which is available to the complainant under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the said Act, gives an indication that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would squarely apply and, therefore, the court had the power to allow amendment of the petition/complaint, more so, when it was necessary for the purpose of determining the real matter in controversy and to prevent multiplicity of the litigation7. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Eluru. The District and Sessions Judge, Eluru set aside the order of the Trial Court holding that there was no specific provision for amendment of the complaint and allowed the appeal of the appellant. Aggrieved by that order, respondent no. 1 filed a revision petition in the High Court which has been allowed by the High Court vide impugned judgment permitting respondent no. 1 to amend the petition/complaint, thereby setting aside the order of the District and Sessions Judge and restoring the order of the Trial Courtpresent appeal preferred by the appellant questioning the validity of the order of the High Court

Court's reasoning:
g is that even in criminal cases governed by the Code, the Court is not powerless and may allow amendment in appropriate cases. One of the circumstances where such an amendment is to be allowed is to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, that there is no power of amendment has to be negated19. In this context, provisions of Sub-Section(2) of Section 28 of the DV Act gain significance. Whereas proceedings under certain sections of the DV Act as specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 28 are to be governed by the Code, the Legislature at the same time incorporated the provisions like sub-Section(2) as well which empowers the Court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of the application under Section 12 or Section 23(2) of the DV Act. This provision has been incorporated by the Legislature keeping a definite purpose in mind. Under Section 12, an application can be made to a Magistrate by an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person to claim one or more reliefs under the said Act. Section 23 deals with the power of the Magistrate to grant interim and ex-parte orders and sub-Section (2) of Section 23 is a special provision carved out in this behalf which is as follows:(2).If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent20. The reliefs that can be granted by the final order or an by interim order, have already been pointed out above wherein it is noticed that most of these reliefs are of civil nature. If the power to amend the complaint/application etc. is not read into the aforesaid provision, the very purpose which the Act attempts to sub-serve itself may be defeated in many cases21 We, thus, are of the opinion that the amendment was rightly allowed by the Trial Court and there is no blemish in the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the Trial Court