Procedure Is the Handmaid of Justice: PH High Court Allows Amendment to Correct Oversight in Domestic Violence Complaint

Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Pankaj Kumar v. Manjit Kaur & Others, CR-5454-2024, dismissed a revision petition challenging a trial court order that allowed the respondent to amend a complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court upheld the amendment, which was sought to correct inadvertent omissions in the complaint regarding monetary relief. It emphasized that procedural laws should aid justice and prevent unnecessary litigation.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Manjit Kaur and her minor son under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The complaint detailed instances of domestic violence, but certain columns regarding monetary reliefs were left blank due to an oversight. When this omission was realized, the respondents moved an application to amend the complaint to fill in the blanks. The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, opposed this amendment, arguing that the respondents should file a fresh complaint instead.

The central issue was whether the Court could allow amendments to complaints filed under the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner contended that the amendment was impermissible. However, the High Court, citing Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari (2016 AIR Supreme Court 2519), reiterated that courts have the authority to permit amendments in domestic violence cases, especially when the amendment prevents multiplicity of proceedings.

"Procedure is the handmaid of justice, meant to aid in the delivery of justice rather than obstructing it. If a party can file a fresh case for the relief sought, there is no reason why the court cannot allow an amendment to avoid unnecessary litigation."

The High Court observed that the omission of monetary relief details in the original complaint was due to an inadvertent clerical error. The trial court correctly allowed the amendment, which did not alter the substance of the complaint but merely corrected an oversight. The amendment was viewed as a necessary procedural correction that aligned with the goals of justice.

"The petitioner’s argument that the complainant should file a fresh complaint is rejected as it would serve no practical purpose and only delay proceedings."

The petitioner also argued that the amendment should only have prospective effect, but the Court rejected this argument, holding that amendments generally have retrospective effect unless specific objections are raised at the time of the amendment. Since no such objections were raised during the trial court proceedings, the retrospective application was deemed appropriate.

The High Court, led by Justice Vikas Bahl, upheld the trial court’s order, concluding that:

Amendment Allowed: The Court allowed the respondent to amend the complaint to fill in the blanks related to monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act.

No Need for Fresh Complaint: The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that a fresh complaint should be filed, emphasizing that allowing the amendment avoided unnecessary litigation and ensured procedural justice.

Retrospective Effect: The amended complaint would have retrospective effect from the date of filing, as the cause of action had arisen at that time.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision reinforces the principle that procedural laws should serve the cause of justice, allowing amendments to correct inadvertent errors in complaints. The ruling underscores the importance of avoiding multiplicity of litigation and ensuring that technicalities do not obstruct substantive justice.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2024