-
by sayum
26 August 2026 1:49 PM
High Court sets aside lower court order, directing petitioner to seek interim protection orders in civil court under the DV Act.
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order from the Additional District Judge of Varanasi, which denied protection orders to Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). Justice Jayant Banerji emphasized the recognition of economic abuse within domestic violence, directing the petitioner to seek interim protection orders in the appropriate civil court.
The petitioner, Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya, is the daughter of the late Vibhuti Narain Singh, the erstwhile ruler of Banaras. She has been living in the ancestral home, Ramnagar Fort, since childhood. After the demise of her father in 2000, she alleged continuous economic abuse and attempts by her younger sibling (Respondent No. 2) to dispossess her from the family properties. Vishnupriya filed an application under the DV Act in October 2011, seeking protection from economic abuse and interference with her property possession.
In her application, she claimed that her brother had taken custody of important documents, including a family settlement, and created a non-conducive living environment. The trial court granted an interim protection order in 2011, prohibiting her brother from interfering with her possession of the shared household. However, in 2021, she filed another application under Section 23 of the DV Act to restrain her brother from transferring certain properties. This application was dismissed by the trial court, leading to an appeal.
Credibility of Economic Abuse: The High Court elaborated on the concept of economic abuse under the DV Act, which includes the deprivation of economic resources and alienation of property the aggrieved person is entitled to use or possess. Justice Jayant Banerji stated, "Economic abuse encompasses actions like the alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, and other properties in which the aggrieved person has an interest."
Interim Relief and Jurisdiction: The court underscored that while a Magistrate under the DV Act can provide interim relief against domestic violence, including economic abuse, the adjudication of title disputes falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts. The relief sought under Section 12 of the DV Act must be incorporated in the application and pursued in appropriate civil legal proceedings. Justice Banerji clarified, "A protection order can be issued by the Magistrate if prima facie satisfaction of domestic violence, including economic abuse, is found, but title disputes must be settled in civil court."
The High Court reaffirmed that amendments to applications under the DV Act are permissible to address subsequent developments and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court noted that relief under the DV Act may be sought in any legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court as per Section 26 of the DV Act. Justice Banerji highlighted, "Economic abuse as defined under the DV Act does not limit itself to the shared household but extends to any property in which the aggrieved person has an interest."
Justice Jayant Banerji remarked, "The definition of economic abuse under the DV Act includes the alienation of assets and deprivation of economic resources, necessitating protection orders to prevent such abuse."
The Allahabad High Court's decision to set aside the lower court's order and direct the petitioner to seek interim protection orders in the civil court underscores the judiciary's recognition of economic abuse within the scope of domestic violence. This ruling not only reinforces the protection available under the DV Act but also highlights the necessity of addressing economic abuse comprehensively within property disputes. The decision is poised to have significant implications for future cases involving economic abuse and property rights under the DV Act.
Date of Decision: 20th May 2024
