Limitation under Section 29 of DV Act1

The Karnataka High Court in Rajendran v Meenakshi2on the question

whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable on Section
29 of the DV Act. Justice Venkatesh held:
Section 29 of the DV Act, merely provides for the period within
which an appeal should be filed and does not prescribe any
period that is condonable if the appeal is not filed on time. Under
the said circumstances, Section 29 of the Limitation Act, will
come in play. Sub Section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act
provides for the application of the Limitation Act, to a special or
local law, insofar as and to the extent to which, they are not
expressly excluded by such special or local law.3
In the instant case, the special law is the application of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and there is
no provision under this Act, which excludes the application of
the provisions under Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act.4
Hence if the statutory limitation of filing the appeal is over, then the
appeal under Section 29 may be allowed by the magistrate, provided
that along with the appeal an application to condone the delay is
filed.5
Major Cases on Point
1. Saurabh Negi v. Vibha Negi6 [Uttrakhand High Court]
- In the case the Court of appeal rejected the appeal under
Section 29 of the DV Act on the ground that there was a
delay of 15 months and 10 days in the filing of the appeal.
- The HC carefully perused the grounds in appellant’s
condonation application which included erroneous legal
advice, depression due to matrimonial dispute and his
mother being ill.
- The Court placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme
Court in K. Subbarayudu & others
Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LAO)7held that Section 5
of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally so as to
advance substantial justice. And when no negligence, want
of bona fide or inaction can be attributable to the
appellants. The court should adopt a justice-oriented
approach and condone the delay.
1
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. {hereinafter “DV Act”}
2
Crl.R.C.No.333 of 2011, Decided on 27/06/2018 (In this case an appeal u/s 29 of the
DV Act was rejected by the appellate court on the ground that the appeal was not filed
within the statutory limit of 30 days. In this case the court deemed fit to condone the
delay of 27 days in filing of appeal.)
3
Id. at ¶10
4
Id. at ¶11.
5
T Rajan v Vani, OP(Crl.). No. 315 of 2015 (Q) [Kerala High Court]
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1100 of 2018, Decided on 26/11/2018.
7
(2017) 12 SCC 840
 - Hence the rejection of the appeal by the district court was
unsustainable in the eyes of law and enough grounds for the
condonation of delay existed in the present case.
- The Court allowed the application and sent it back to the
district court for disposing off the appeal.

2. Suchandra Bhutoria v. State of West Bengal8 [Calcutta

High Court]
- In this case the appellate Court rejected the appeal under
Section 29 of the DV Act on the ground that there was a
delay of 117 days in the filing of the appeal and the grounds
of condonation were not satisfactory.
- The HC placed reliance on the SC decision in Collector,
Land Acquisition V. Katiji & Ors 9 held that the court has to
take a liberal approach in respect of the consideration of
sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay so that it
sub serves the ends of justice.
- The HC observed that sufficient grounds for condonation of
delay were present in the application and therefore allowed
the application and sent it back to the magistrate to dispose
the appeal in 3 months.

3. Balpreet Singh v. State of UP10 [Allahabad High Court]

- In this case the Kanpur District Appellate Court rejected the
application of condonation of delay of the appellant and
subsequently dismissed the appeal u/s 29 of DV Act citing
delay of more than 1 year.
- The High Court in this case discussed a catena of Supreme
Court judgments on the point and decided that the delay
was justified and allowed the application and sent it back to
the magistrate for reconsideration of the appeal.

8
C.R.R. No.3035 of 2014, [Decided on January 28, 2915]
9
AIR 1987 SC 1353
10
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1794 of 2017, Decided on 8/10/2018