Thane: The Appellate Court has dismissed an appeal in a domestic violence case filed by a 48-year-old estranged wife and her 16-year-old daughter against her 49-year-old estranged husband, a UAE resident. The dismissal followed the wife’s failure to adhere to procedural requirements while attempting to admit documents as evidence against her husband. The court upheld the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM), Thane, decision, which had rejected the wife’s application to admit documents after cross-examination had begun.
The wife, in an attempt to substantiate her allegations of domestic violence, had submitted 30 documents before the Trial Court. However, it was later revealed that these documents were not properly exhibited as evidence during the proceedings. Despite three separate days of cross-examination conducted on these documents, the procedural lapse came to light. The wife argued that her lack of legal knowledge led to this oversight and pleaded with the Trial Court to accept the “30 non-exhibited documents” as evidence. The Trial Court declined her request, prompting her to file an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Thane.
In her appeal, the complainant contended that being a layperson, she was unaware of the legal procedure and argued that the Trial Court should have exercised its discretion under Section 28(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005, to adopt a more flexible approach. The respondent (husband) opposed this, asserting that procedural lapses could not be overlooked.
After reviewing the arguments, the Appellate Court noted that the complainant’s evidence affidavit did not refer the 30 documents she sought to admit, nor were the documents proved as per the Indian Evidence Act. The court observed, “The Trial Court had already commenced cross-examination on three separate dates, making it procedurally inappropriate to admit the documents at that stage. Furthermore, Section 28(2) of the PWDVA allows courts to lay down their own procedures; however, the Trial Court was within its discretion to adhere to the procedures prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).”
The Appellate Court concluded that the Trial Court’s reasoning and adherence to procedural norms were legally sound. It stated, “No fault can be found in the view taken by the Learned Trial Court. It is the discretion of the Trial Court to either depart from or adhere to the prescribed procedure, and the Appellate Court cannot interfere with this discretion.”
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s order dated November 3, 2023, was confirmed.
