In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court clarified the scope of invoking inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to challenge interim orders passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The court emphasized that such powers should only be exercised in cases involving “manifest illegality or blatant irregularity.”
The case, titled Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr., came before the High Court through an unnumbered Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C No. 5751 of 2025). The petitioner, Titus, challenged an interim order issued by the Grama Nyayalaya, Vellanadu, under Section 12(1) of the DV Act.
However, the Registry had flagged a defect, questioning the maintainability of the petition under Section 528 of BNSS when an appeal remedy under Section 29 of the DV Act was already available.
Justice G. Girish, while considering the issue, remarked:
"Only in cases where there is manifest illegality and blatant irregularity of the proceedings, the High Court will be justified in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (previously Section 482 Cr.P.C)."
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rules Past Association Grounds to Disqualify Arbitrator Under Arbitration Act, Section 14
The court relied on established precedents such as Vijayalekshmi Amma V.K. v. Bindu V., Naresh Potteries v. Aarti Industries, and Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal. These cases reiterate that the High Court should use its inherent powers “sparingly and with great caution,” particularly in cases under the DV Act, which is a welfare legislation.
Quoting the Supreme Court from the Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi case:
“The High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or abuse of process of law… unless courts show restraint, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated.”
The Kerala High Court observed that the interim order challenged by Titus did not exhibit any such illegality or irregularity. It further noted that the petitioner had alternative remedies available:
“The petitioner could approach the same court for modifying or vacating the interim order or file an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act.”
Upholding the Registry’s objection, the Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable under Section 528 of BNSS and ordered that the petition be returned.
Case Title: Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 5751 of 2025 (Filing No.)
Date of Order: July 1, 2025
Petitioner’s Counsel: Adv. M.R. Sarin
Respondent’s Counsel: Public Prosecutor (R1)
