If Power To Amend Is Not Read Into DV Act, It Would Defeat Its Very Purpose: Bombay High Court Upholds Amendment of Pleadings in Domestic Violence Proceedings

"Pleadings Must Exist Before Evidence Is Led – Procedural Flexibility Is Essential Under Benevolent Legislation", In a significant pronouncement strengthening the remedial framework of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has categorically held that amendment of pleadings in Domestic Violence proceedings is permissible, and refusal to allow such amendment would defeat the very object of the Act.

Justice Mehroz K. Pathan restored the Trial Court’s order permitting amendment of the complaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code in proceedings under the DV Act.

The Court ruled that the amendment, which sought to incorporate details of the shared household and consequential relief under Section 19 of the DV Act, was necessary for effective adjudication and did not alter the nature of the original complaint.

The petitioner-wife had filed proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking various reliefs, including a residence order under Section 19.

Earlier, the Magistrate had disposed of her interim application under Section 19 as premature but granted liberty to both parties to lead evidence at the final hearing regarding the claim for residence.

Subsequently, the wife sought amendment of her main complaint to incorporate specific details of the shared household and to modify the prayer clause accordingly. The Trial Court allowed the amendment, observing that it would not cause prejudice to the respondents and that cross-examination had not yet commenced.

However, the Appellate Court set aside the amendment order, holding that the relief sought involved complex property questions better suited for civil adjudication.

Whether Amendment of Pleadings Is Permissible in DV Proceedings

The core legal issue before the High Court was whether pleadings in a complaint under the DV Act can be amended by invoking Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and whether such amendment is consistent with the scheme of the Act.

Justice Pathan answered this question in the affirmative.

The Court observed that the amendment sought was merely to incorporate material particulars of the shared household and to enable the petitioner to lead evidence in pursuance of liberty already granted by the Magistrate. It did not change the basic nature of the complaint.

Significantly, the Court emphasised that no evidence can be led without corresponding pleadings on record. In this context, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, wherein it was held that procedural flexibility must be read into the DV Act.

The High Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s principle that:

“If power to amend complaint / application etc. is not read into the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the same would defeat very purpose for which Act attempts to sub-serve itself.”

Thus, amendment of pleadings in DV proceedings is legally permissible so long as it does not change the fundamental nature of the complaint.

Amendment Held Consequential and Necessary

The Court noted that the wife had not initially pleaded complete details of the shared household or included a specific prayer regarding possession of her share in the property. Since the Magistrate had permitted parties to lead evidence on residence under Section 19, it became necessary to incorporate corresponding pleadings.

The High Court held that such an amendment is consequential and essential for determining the real controversy between the parties.

It rejected the Appellate Court’s view that the amendment converted the matter into a property dispute. The Court clarified that a residence claim under Section 19 of the DV Act does not automatically transform proceedings into civil property litigation.

Benevolent Object of the DV Act Must Guide Interpretation

The Court reiterated that the DV Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to secure the rights of women facing domestic violence, including their right to reside in the shared household under Sections 17 and 19.

Denying procedural tools like amendment would frustrate the substantive rights guaranteed under the Act.

The High Court thus restored the Trial Court’s order permitting amendment and directed expeditious disposal of the main application.

The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that amendment of pleadings is permissible in Domestic Violence proceedings when such amendment is necessary for effective adjudication and does not alter the basic nature of the complaint.

The ruling underscores that procedural technicalities cannot override the substantive protections intended under the DV Act. Courts must adopt a liberal approach consistent with the benevolent purpose of the legislation.

Date of Decision: 26 February 2026