In a case of domestic violence, the Appellate Court imposed a unique condition on the victim woman. The woman had requested the appellate court to allow her to produce witnesses to substantiate her claims. The court said that it is okay but for each witness the woman will have to deposit Rs 20,000. She can produce as many witnesses as she wants.

The woman was also denied maintenance during the hearing of the case. When she approached the High Court, she got a unique kind of relief. The High Court said that let's reduce some fees. You deposit ten thousand rupees for each witness. When the woman did not get justice, she reached the threshold of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court listened to her and said that the decision of the Appellate Court and the Delhi High Court was wrong. The woman can produce as many witnesses as she wants to prove her claims. No fee should be charged from him.

The Cour said, "In a complaint filed under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not open to the Court to impose such onerous conditions upon the appellant, who claims to be a victim of domestic violence. What the Appellate Court and the High Court have ordered are actually in the nature of penalty for the appellant not proceeding with the trial. In the first instance, it is impermissible in law.

The woman had filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. The trial court did not allow her to produce any witness and dismissed the case. When she approached the appellate court, the cost of each witness became Rs 20,000. When Delhi High Court went, the cost of witnesses was increased to Rs 10,000. A bench of Supreme Court Justices V Ramasubramaniam and Pankaj Mittal overruled the decisions.

Case Details:-

SLP(CRIMINAL) No.1090 OF 2023)
BHAWNA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
BHAY RAM AND OTHERS ..... RESPONDENTS

Appearance of the Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s) 
Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR
Ms. Shubhangi Negi, Adv.
Ms. Soumya Dhankani, Adv.
Mr. Shaubhik Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Hira Lal Nimbaa, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR