Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice G. Girish has held inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)cannot be invoked to set aside interim orders under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act( unless there is a glaring illegality or abuse of process. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2025) Case? 

• Nature of the Dispute: An interim order was passed by the Grama Nyayalaya, Vellanadu under Section 12(1) of the PWDV Act, 2005. This section allows an aggrieved person or Protection Officer to seek relief from a Magistrate for domestic violence matters. 
• Petitioner's Action: The affected party filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C) before the Kerala High Court seeking to set aside this interim order. The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Registry's Concern: The Court Registry identified a procedural defect and did not assign a case number to the petition. The Registry questioned whether the petition was maintainable under Section 528 BNSS, given that Section 29 of the PWDV Act already provides an appeal mechanism against such orders. 
• Legal Framework:  
  • Section 528 BNSS (previously Section 482 CrPC) grants inherent powers to High Courts to pass orders for giving effect to any order, preventing abuse of court process, or securing justice. 
  • Section 29 of the PWDV Act provides a specific appeal route to the Court of Session against Magistrate's orders. 
  • The PWDV Act is welfare legislation specifically designed to protect women from domestic violence. 
• Procedural Issue: The central question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers when a statutory appeal remedy already exists under the PWDV Act, and whether the interim order contained any manifest illegality or blatant irregularity that would justify such intervention. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court relied on established Supreme Court precedents in Vijayalekshmi Amma V.K.(Dr.) & Anr v. Bindu V and Others (2010), Naresh Potteries (M/s.) V. M/s. Aarti Industries (2025), and Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025) to establish the legal framework. 
• The Court noted that extraordinary inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) cannot be exercised to quash interim orders passed by Magistrates under Sections 18 to 23 of the PWDV Act unless absolutely necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of court process, or secure justice. 
• The Court emphasized that since the PWDV Act, 2005 is welfare legislation specially enacted to provide justice to women suffering from domestic violence, High Courts must be extremely slow and circumspect when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1). 
• The Court clarified that interference through inherent powers can only be made when there is gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. The Court stated that only in cases of manifest illegality and blatant irregularity of proceedings would the High Court be justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to unsettle orders passed by Magistrates under PWDV Act provisions. 
• The Court observed that High Courts must generally adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing applications under Section 12(1), as excessive interference would defeat the very object of enacting the PWDV Act, 2005. 
• The Court noted that against orders passed by Magistrates, there is an appeal provided under Section 29 to the Court of Session, unlike cases involving cognizance of offences or process issuance where no appeal remedy exists. 
• The Court found that the interim order in question (Annexure A3) could not be characterized as one of gross illegality or irregularity, and that the petitioner could approach the same court seeking modification or vacation of the order if sufficient reasons existed. 
•  The Court sustained the defect noted by the Registry regarding maintainability, finding that the petition under Section 528 BNSS was not the appropriate remedy given the availability of statutory appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act. 
• The Court directed the Registry to return the petition to the petitioner, effectively refusing to entertain the matter under the inherent powers provision.

What is Interim Orders under DV Act ?

Section 12 - Application to Magistrate: 

• Who Can Apply: An aggrieved person, a Protection Officer, or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. 
• Mandatory Consideration: Before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate must take into consideration any domestic incident report received from the Protection Officer or service provider. 
• Types of Relief Available: The relief sought may include compensation or damages without prejudice to the right to institute a separate suit for compensation for injuries caused by domestic violence acts. 
• Set-off Provision: Where a decree for compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount paid under the Magistrate's order shall be set off against the decree amount. 
• Application Form: Every application must be in the prescribed form and contain prescribed particulars or as nearly as possible thereto. 
• Timeline for First Hearing: The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court. 
• Disposal Timeline: The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing. 

Section 23 - Power to Grant Interim and Ex Parte Orders: 

• General Power: In any proceeding under the Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper. 
• Ex Parte Orders: If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, has committed, or is likely to commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order based on the aggrieved person's affidavit. 
• Scope of Ex Parte Orders: Ex parte orders can be granted under Section 18 (Protection orders), Section 19 (Residence orders), Section 20 (Monetary reliefs), Section 21 (Custody orders), or Section 22 (Compensation orders). 
• Affidavit Requirement: Ex parte orders must be based on affidavit in prescribed form submitted by the aggrieved person. 

Related Provisions for Interim Relief: 

• Duration: Protection orders under Section 18 remain in force until the aggrieved person applies for discharge (Section 25). 
• Modification: The Magistrate may alter, modify, or revoke any order upon application from either party if there is a change in circumstances requiring such action (Section 25). 
• Enforcement: All orders made under the Act are enforceable throughout India (Section 27). 
• Appeal: There is an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date the order is served on the aggrieved person or respondent, whichever is later (Section 29). 
• Distribution of Orders: The Magistrate must provide free copies of orders to parties, police officer in-charge, and relevant service providers (Section 24).