Witness-summoning orders in domestic violence proceedings are revisable where they materially affect evidence and fair procedure.

An order summoning witnesses in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was held not to be merely interlocutory because it materially affected the conduct of evidence and the rights of the parties; revision was therefore maintainable. The Magistrate's discretion to regulate procedure in such proceedings must be exercised judicially and consistently with the governing principles on order of proof. On that footing, issuing summons to the respondent's sons before the respondent himself entered the witness box was found premature, since the respondent was also a material witness and no reasons were recorded for departing from the usual sequence. The challenge succeeded and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order summoning witnesses in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was interlocutory so as to bar revision; and (ii) whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing summons to the respondent's sons before the respondent himself entered the witness box.

Issue (i): whether the order summoning witnesses in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was interlocutory so as to bar revision.

Analysis: An order is not interlocutory merely because it is not final. An order that substantially affects the rights of the parties in relation to the controversy cannot be treated as purely incidental or as a mere step in aid. The order under challenge directly affected the manner in which evidence was to be led in the proceedings and therefore bore on the adjudication of the dispute in a material way.

Conclusion: The order was not interlocutory and the revision was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing summons to the respondent's sons before the respondent himself entered the witness box.

Analysis: Proceedings under the Act are predominantly civil in nature, though governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the Act permits a different procedure. The Magistrate has discretion to evolve procedure, but that discretion must be exercised with caution and in a manner consistent with fair play. The order of examination of witnesses is generally regulated by the applicable procedural law and, in civil proceedings, a party who wishes to testify ordinarily does so before other witnesses on his behalf, unless the Court records reasons to permit a later appearance. The impugned orders did not reflect any consideration of this aspect, and the respondent himself was also a material witness on the allegations made.

Conclusion: The summons to the sons was premature and could not be sustained before the respondent's own testimony was considered.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge were set aside, and the matter was remitted to be considered afresh after the respondent's own evidence, if he chose to lead it.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Magistrate may regulate procedure with discretion, but that discretion must be exercised judicially and consistently with the governing principles on the order of evidence, and a witness-summoning order that materially affects the conduct of the case is revisable.

---