Case at a Glance
A wife’s domestic violence case stalled because her husband, living in Saudi Arabia, was allegedly avoiding the proceedings. To force his appearance, the Uttarakhand High Court ordered non-bailable warrants, proclamation proceedings and attachment of a property — the house where his mother and sisters lived — after which the police locked the house and they were ousted. The Supreme Court called this “highly impermissible”, set aside the order, and directed the attachment to be lifted at once, explaining that attachment only puts property in the court’s custody and does not authorise removing those living in it. The wife remains free to secure the husband’s presence through lawful steps such as a look-out notice.
The wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Magistrate, seeking protection, maintenance of Rs 25,000 a month for herself and her minor daughter, and a restraint on alienation of the shared household. Because the case had been pending for over two and a half years, she approached the Uttarakhand High Court (CRLMA No. 684 of 2025) for its expeditious disposal.
The High Court issued notice on 19 June 2025 and, on 29 July 2025, allowed service on the husband through the consulate, WhatsApp and email. On 2 July 2026 it recorded that he was avoiding the proceedings while living in Saudi Arabia and asked his mother’s and sisters’ counsel to take instructions on his appearance. By the order under appeal (7 July 2026), it directed non-bailable warrants and Section 82 proceedings, and attachment of the property where the appellants — the husband’s mother and sisters — resided, with a compliance report from the SHO. The appellants said the police then locked the house and removed them. The High Court later disposed of the matter on 6 October 2026, and the wife argued that the appeal had become infructuous.
The Key Question Before the Court
Could the husband’s mother and sisters be ousted from their home through attachment because the husband failed to appear in the domestic violence proceedings?
Attachment Freezes Property; It Does Not Evict Women Living There
The Supreme Court rejected the plea that the appeal was infructuous: although it would ordinarily not comment on a matter finally disposed of, the interim order was still operating and being enforced. Turning to the merits, the Court pointed to Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act, which allows a Magistrate to direct a respondent to remove himself from the shared household, but whose proviso states: “Provided no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.” Against that statutory protection, the Court described the police action as “highly impermissible”.
The Court held that the appellants “could not have been ousted from the residential premises where they are residing” merely because the husband did not appear. Attachment, at most, prevents encumbrances and results in “the said property becoming custodia legis namely it would come to the custody of the Court”; it does not authorise locking the premises or removing the occupants. The order cites no precedents.
What the Court Actually Held
- The High Court order directing attachment, under which the appellants were ousted, is set aside, and the attachment is to be raised forthwith.
- Attachment only makes property custodia legis to prevent encumbrances; it does not permit locking the house or evicting its residents.
- Women relatives cannot be removed from their residence to pressure an absent husband, given the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act.
- The wife may move the Magistrate for appropriate steps, including a look-out notice, to secure the husband’s presence, and the trial court is to expedite the hearing.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects women family members from being made collateral targets when a husband evades domestic violence proceedings.
- It clarifies what attachment of property means in law: custody of the court, not dispossession.
- It points aggrieved wives to lawful tools such as look-out notices to secure an absconding husband.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives Seeking Relief
- If the husband is abroad and avoiding the case, ask the Magistrate for steps such as a look-out notice and coercive process against him.
- Seek expedited disposal; the Supreme Court asked the trial court to speed up the hearing.
For Counsel
- An interim order still being enforced can be challenged even if the main matter has since been disposed of.
- Invoke the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) where women relatives face removal from their home.
- Explain to courts that attachment preserves property; it does not authorise eviction.
Key Takeaways
- Attachment makes property custodia legis; it does not authorise evicting occupants.
- The DV Act bars residence-removal orders against women.
- An absent husband’s default cannot be visited on his mother and sisters by locking their home.
- Look-out notices and other lawful processes remain available to secure the husband’s presence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does ‘custodia legis’ mean?
It means the property is in the custody of the law or the court; it cannot be sold or encumbered without the court’s leave, but the order here makes clear that this does not mean the people living there can be thrown out.
Can a woman relative be ordered out of the shared household under the DV Act?
The proviso to Section 19(1)(b) says no order directing a respondent to remove himself from the shared household can be passed against any person who is a woman.
What can the wife do now?
She may approach the Magistrate for appropriate applications, including a look-out notice, to secure the husband’s presence, and the trial court has been asked to expedite the case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line between pressing an absconding husband to appear and punishing the women of his family: coercive steps must target the person avoiding the court, and attachment cannot become a tool for eviction.
Practical takeaway: When a respondent abroad evades DV proceedings, seek look-out notices and coercive process against him; do not seek orders that dispossess other family members from their home.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com