Collateral attack on a subsisting divorce decree is impermissible; domestic violence proceedings were quashed as abuse of process.

A subsisting divorce decree cannot be treated as a nullity in collateral proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Even a decree alleged to be fraudulent or void must first be challenged before the competent forum, and reliefs depending on dislodging that decree cannot be pursued while it remains operative. The Court also noted that the complaint related to earlier conduct and, in the factual setting, continuation of the proceedings would conflict with the civil decree and amount to abuse of process. The proceedings and all orders passed in them were therefore quashed, with the limitation objection also supporting that result.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a criminal court could, in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, entertain claims premised on a divorce decree that still subsisted and treat that decree as a nullity in collateral proceedings; (ii) Whether the complaint was liable to be rejected on limitation and as an abuse of process.

Issue (i): Whether a criminal court could, in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, entertain claims premised on a divorce decree that still subsisted and treat that decree as a nullity in collateral proceedings.

Analysis: A decree obtained by fraud may be vulnerable, but even a void or voidable order must be challenged before the competent forum and cannot be ignored in collateral proceedings. The subsisting decree of divorce, passed on mutual consent under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, could not be disregarded by a criminal court merely on the complainant's allegation that the decree was sham or fraudulent. The complaint sought reliefs that depended on first dislodging the civil decree, which was not permissible while the decree remained in force. The Court also treated the complainant's own version as involving her in the alleged fraud, which weakened her entitlement to invoke equitable relief on that footing.

Conclusion: The complaint could not proceed on the basis of a collateral attack on the subsisting divorce decree, and that issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was liable to be rejected on limitation and as an abuse of process.

Analysis: The Court noted that the complaint related to alleged conduct much earlier than the filing date and examined the applicability of the limitation framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure as made applicable by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Rules. In the factual setting, allowing the complaint to continue would be incompatible with the subsisting civil decree and would amount to abuse of the process of court.

Conclusion: The complaint was liable to be quashed as an abuse of process, and the limitation objection also supported that result.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 could not be sustained while the decree of divorce remained operative, and the criminal complaint and all orders passed therein were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Even a decree alleged to be void or obtained by fraud must be set aside by the competent civil forum and cannot be ignored or nullified in collateral criminal proceedings; continuation of proceedings founded on such an unchallenged decree is an abuse of process.

---