Nagaland High Court revives woman’s maintenance appeal, stressing substantive justice and a liberal approach to delays under Domestic Violence Act
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has revived a woman’s appeal against the reduction of her monthly maintenance, holding that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of substantive justice in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer, in a judgement pronounced on Monday, set aside an order of the Sessions Judge, Dimapur, which had rejected the woman’s plea to condone delays of 123 and 55 days in filing her appeal.
The High Court directed the Sessions Judge to admit the appeal and decide it on its merits.
The woman had approached the High Court after the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Dimapur, reduced her monthly maintenance from INR 1 lakh to INR 60,000, inclusive of rent, in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.
Also read: Nagaland: HC fixes September 29 hearing in Reny Wilfred case, rules out further adjournment
The JMFC had initially directed the respondent to pay INR 1 lakh towards monthly rent for alternate accommodation and another INR 1 lakh as maintenance for the woman and her minor daughters. The order was later modified to a combined amount of INR 1 lakh towards maintenance and rent, which was subsequently reduced to INR 60,000 in August 2024.
The woman then filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge challenging the orders and sought condonation of the delay in filing it. The Sessions Court rejected the application, holding that sufficient cause had not been shown.
The High Court, however, found that the delay had occurred due to bona fide circumstances, including a change of counsel and the time taken to obtain case records and additional documents.
It observed that the Domestic Violence Act is a beneficial and welfare-oriented legislation and that courts should generally favour deciding such matters on merits rather than shutting out an appeal on grounds of limitation.
Read more:
“Procedural technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice,” the court ruled, calling for a liberal and justice-oriented approach while considering applications for condonation of delay in such cases.
The court further held that while an application for condonation of delay is interlocutory in nature, its rejection can be examined in revision if it effectively terminates a statutory appeal and denies the aggrieved party an appellate remedy.
The High Court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the underlying maintenance dispute, as the revision petition before it was limited to the Sessions Judge’s rejection of the application for condonation of delay.