PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

INTRO:

In the Indian patriarchal setup, it became an acceptable practice to abuse women. There may be many reasons for the
occurrence of domestic violence. From a feminist standpoint, it could be said that the occurrence of domestic violence
against women arises out of the patriarchal setup, the stereotyping of gender roles, and the distribution of power, real
or perceived, in society. Following such ideology, men are believed to be stronger than women and more powerful. They
control women and their lives and as a result of this power play, they may hurt women with impunity. The role of the
woman is to accept her ‘fate’ and the violence employed against her meekly. The Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act (or the Domestic Violence Act) is a laudable piece of legislation that was enacted in 2005 to tackle this
problem. Admittedly, women could earlier approach the Courts under the S.498A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases of
domestic violence. However, the kinds of domestic violence contemplated by this Act, and the victims recognized by it,
make it more expansive in scope than the IPC. There was no measure in place to allow her to continue staying in her
matrimonial home and yet raise her voice against the violence perpetrated against her. This, together with many other
problems faced by women in the household, prompted this enactment.

SCOPE:

Till the year 2005, the remedies available to a victim of domestic violence were limited. The women either had to go to
the civil court for a decree of divorce or initiate prosecution in the criminal court for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of IPC. In both the proceedings, no emergency relief is available to the victim. Also, the relationships
outside the marriage were not recognized. This set of circumstances ensured that a majority of women preferred to
suffer in silence, not out of choice but of compulsion. Having regard to all these facts, the parliament thought fit to enact
Domestic Violence Act as per A.253 of the Indian constitution in furtherance of CEDAW. The main Object of the Act is
protection of women from violence inflicted by a man or/and a woman. It is a progressive Act; whose sole intention is to
protect the women irrespective of the relationship she shares with the accused. The definition of an aggrieved person
under the Act is so wide that it is taken within its purview even women who are living with their partners in a live-in
relationship.

The Madras High Court in Vandhana v. T. Srikanth, 2007 SCC Online Mad 553 in one of the early cases since the
enactment of the DV Act, observed that the Act was formulated to implement Recommendation No. 12 of United
Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1989 and
which was ratified by India in June, 1993.

AIMS AND OBJECTS:

The main object of the Act is to provide more effective protection to the constitutional rights of women and to protect
them against violence of any kind occurring within the family.

• D.V. Act, 2005 provides civil remedies to the victims for enforcement of her rights case of Indra eg. Right to residence,
Maintenance,Custody, Protection and compensation.

• Thelegislative intent was further emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma,
(2013) 15 SCC 755 wherein it was stated that the DVAct is enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for the protection of
women, from being victims of such relationship, and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society.
DEFINITIONS:

1. Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act defines “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic
violence by the respondent. The Domestic Violence Act not only covers those women who are or have been in a
relationship with the abuser but it also covers those women who have lived together in a shared household and
are related by consanguinity, marriage of through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption.

• Any woman who is, or has been in a domestic or family relationship with the respondent and who has been
subjected to domestic violence, can file a complaint under this act for redressal of her grievance.
• Any Police Officer, Protection Officer or service provider may also file a complaint with regard to Domestic
Violence to be held to any women.
• Any person who has reason to believe that an act of domestic violence has been, or is being, or is likely to be
committed, may give information about it to the concerned Protection Officer.
• The Act protects even those females who are sisters, widows or mothers, living together as a joint family with
the respondent in a shared household.
• Even a woman in “live-in-relationship” she has to get the benefit of D.V. Act, if she fulfils certain conditions.

A wider meaning to an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act was conferred by the
Supreme Court in the case of D.Veluswamy vs. D.Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 SC 479, wherein the Court enumerated five
ingredients of a live-in-relationship as follows:

1. Both the parties must behave as husband and wife and are recognized as husband and wife in front of society.

2. They must be of a valid legal age of marriage.

3. They should qualify to enter into marriage e.g. None of the partner should have a spouse living at the time of entering
into relationship.

4. They must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time.

5. They must have lived together in a shared household. The Supreme Court also observed that not all live-in-
relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of Domestic Violence Act. To get
such benefit the conditions mentioned above shall be fulfilled and this has to be proved by evidence.

2. As per section 2(q) ‘Respondent’ means any ‘adult male person’ who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship
with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought relief under the Act. Provided
that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint
against a relative of the husband or the male partner.

The Supreme Court in the case of Sandhya Wankhede vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhede (2011) 3 SCC 650 put to rest the
issue by 12 holding that the proviso to Section 2(q) does not exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner
from the ambit of a complaint that can be under the provisions the Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, complaints are
not just maintainable against the adult male person but also the female relative of such adult male.

3. The term shared household is defined under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act as a household where
the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the
respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly or individually by either of
them and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member,
 irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared
household.

4. “Domestic relationship” under Sec. 2(f) means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any
point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or
through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint
family16. Thus, a person who is not in a domestic relationship, cannot be a respondent under this Act.

5. S.2 © defines “Compensation Order” as compensation order means an order granted in terms of
section 22;

6. Section 3 defines “Domestic Violence” as, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the
respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it

(a)harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limp or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved
person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic
abuse; or

(b)harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c)has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause
(a) or clause (b); or

(d)otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

As per Explanation- I of section 3 of D.V. Act, 2005

i. Physical Abuse

Physical abuse is the use of physical force against a woman in a way that causes her bodily injury or hurt. Physical
assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force are also forms of physical abuse like beating, kicking and punching,
throwing objects, damaging property, punched walls, kicked doors, abandoning her in a dangerous or unfamiliar place,
using weapon to threaten or to hurt her, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home, hurting her children, using physical
force in sexual situations.

ii. Sexual Abuse

This is also a form of physical abuse. Any situation in which a woman is forced to participate in unwanted safe or
degrading sexual activity, calling her sexual names, hurting a woman with objects and weapons during sex is sexual
abuse.

iii. Verbal and Emotional Abuse

Many women suffer from emotional abuse, which is no less destructive. Unfortunately, emotional abuse is often
minimized or overlooked- even by the woman being abused. Emotional abuse includes verbal abuse such as yelling,
name-calling, blaming and shaming. Isolation, intimidation and controlling behaviour also fall under emotional abuse.

iv. Economic Abuse

Economic abuse is not a very recognized form of abuse among the women but it is very detrimental. It mainly includes a
woman not been provided with enough money by her partner to maintain herself and her children, which may comprise
money for food, clothing, medicines etc. and not allowing a woman to take up an employment. Forcing her out of the
house where she lives and not providing her rent, in case of a rented share hold also amounts to abuse. Depriving her of
all or any economic or financial resources to which the person is entitled under the law or custom, restricting the
woman’s access to the shared household. Disposing or alienating the assets of the women whether movable or
immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and like other property in which she may have an interest. However,
seeking maintenance to unjustly enrich one and that too without providing the alleged act of domestic violence is a
gross abuse of the process of law.

CH-III (POWERS AND DUTIES OF PROTECTION OFFICERS, SERVICE PROVIDERS ETC.)

SECTION 4-11

The authorities appointed for the protection of victims of domestic violence are;

• Protection Officers – A Protection Officer is an officer, preferably a woman, appointed & notified by the State
Government in notified area for discharge her duties under the Act

• Service Provider– Any NGO or other organization registered under this Act may be service provider.

• Police Officers, and

• Magistrate

S.4 - Information to Protection Officer and exclusion of liability of informant

It states that any person who has reason to believe that an act of domestic violence has been, is being, or is likely to be
committed, may inform the Protection Officer about it. Additionally, no liability, civil or criminal, shall be incurred by
any person for providing such information in good faith.

S.5 - Duties of police officers, service providers and Magistrate

It outlines the duties of police officers, service providers, and Magistrates when handling domestic violence
cases. It mandates that these authorities must inform the aggrieved person about:

 Her right to seek relief through protection orders, monetary relief, custody orders, residence orders,
and compensation orders.
 The availability of services provided by service providers and Protection Officers.
 Her right to free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
 Her right to file a complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, wherever applicable.

Additionally, the Act clarifies that nothing in this section relieves police officers from their duty to act
according to the law upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.

S.6 - Duties of shelter homes

It states that if an aggrieved person or someone acting on her behalf (such as a Protection Officer or a service
provider) requests shelter, the person in charge of the shelter home must provide accommodation to the
aggrieved person.
S.7 - Duties of medical facilities

It states that if an aggrieved person or someone acting on her behalf (such as a Protection Officer or a service
provider) requests medical aid, the person in charge of the medical facility must provide medical assistance
to the aggrieved person.

S.8 - Appointment of Protection Officers

It states that:

 The State Government shall appoint Protection Officers in each district as necessary and notify the
areas where they will operate.
 Protection Officers should, as far as possible, be women, and they must have the qualifications and
experience prescribed by law.
 The terms and conditions of service for Protection Officers and their subordinates shall be determined
by the government.

Protection Officers play a crucial role in implementing the Act by assisting victims, coordinating with
authorities, and ensuring compliance with court orders.

S.9 - Duties and functions of Protection Officers

It states that:

 Protection Officers must assist the Magistrate in carrying out functions under the Act.
 They must prepare a domestic incident report upon receiving a complaint and forward copies to the
police and service providers.
 If the aggrieved person desires, they must apply to the Magistrate for a protection order.
 They must ensure that the aggrieved person receives legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987.
 They must maintain a list of service providers, including legal aid providers, shelter homes, and
medical facilities.
 If needed, they must arrange safe shelter for the aggrieved person and inform the police and
Magistrate.
 If the victim has sustained injuries, they must arrange a medical examination and forward the report to
the police and Magistrate.
 They must ensure compliance with monetary relief orders issued under Section 20.
 They must perform any other duties prescribed under the Act.

Additionally, Protection Officers work under the control and supervision of the Magistrate and must follow
directives issued by the government.

S.10 - Service providers

It states that:

 Any voluntary association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Companies Act,
1956, or any other law with the objective of protecting women's rights can register itself with the State
Government as a service provider.
 A registered service provider has the power to:
 o Record a domestic incident report if the aggrieved person desires and forward it to the
Magistrate and Protection Officer.
o Arrange medical examination for the aggrieved person and send the medical report to the
Protection Officer and police station.
o Provide shelter to the aggrieved person if she requires it and inform the police station about her
lodging.
 No suit, prosecution, or legal proceeding shall lie against a service provider or its members for actions
taken in good faith under this Act.

S.11 - Duties of Government

It mandates that the Central Government and every State Government must take measures to:

 Publicize the provisions of the Act through television, radio, and print media at regular intervals.
 Provide sensitization and awareness training to government officers, police officers, and members of
the judicial services on issues related to domestic violence.
 Establish effective coordination between various ministries and departments dealing with law, home
affairs, health, and human resources to address domestic violence.
 Develop protocols for different ministries and courts to ensure proper delivery of services to women
under the Act.

This section ensures that the government actively works to spread awareness and improve the response system
for victims of domestic violence.

CH – IV (PROCEDURE FOR OBTAININGORDERS OF RELIEFS)

S. 12-28

An aggrieved person or a protection officer, or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present
an application to the Magistrate for relief and protection. After hearing the aggrieved person and the respondent,
the Magistrate may pass any of the following orders:

• Protection Order.

• Residence order.

• Interim custody order.

• Order providing monetary relief e.g. for loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss or destruction of property,
maintenance.

• Compensation order, i.e. damages for injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused to the
aggrieved.

S.12 - Application to Magistrate

It outlines the procedure for filing an application to a Magistrate for relief. It states that:
  An aggrieved person, a Protection Officer, or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person
may present an application to the Magistrate seeking relief under the Act.
 Before passing any order, the Magistrate must consider any domestic incident report received from
the Protection Officer or service provider.
 The relief sought may include compensation or damages for injuries caused by domestic violence.
 If a court has already passed a decree for compensation, the amount payable under the Magistrate’s
order shall be set off against the decree amount.
 The application must be in the prescribed form and contain the necessary particulars.
 The Magistrate must fix the first hearing date within three days of receiving the application.
 The Magistrate should endeavor to dispose of the application within sixty days from the first hearing.

S.13 - Service of notice

It states that:

 A notice of the date of hearing fixed under Section 12 shall be given by the Magistrate to the
Protection Officer.
 The Protection Officer must serve the notice on the respondent and any other person as directed by the
Magistrate.
 The notice must be served within two days or within a reasonable time as allowed by the Magistrate.
 A declaration of service made by the Protection Officer in the prescribed form shall be considered
proof that the notice was served, unless proven otherwise.

This section ensures that the respondent is properly informed about the proceedings and has an opportunity to
respond.

S.14 – Counselling

It states that:

 The Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the respondent or the aggrieved person
(either singly or jointly) to undergo counselling with a qualified member of a service provider.
 If such a direction is issued, the Magistrate must fix the next hearing date within a period not
exceeding two months.

This provision ensures that victims and respondents have access to professional guidance to address domestic
violence issues.

S.15 - Assistance of welfare expert

It states that:

 In any proceeding under this Act, the Magistrate may secure the services of a welfare expert,
preferably a woman.
 The welfare expert may be related or unrelated to the aggrieved person.
 The expert may be engaged in promoting family welfare or any other relevant field.
 The Magistrate may appoint such an expert as he thinks fit to assist in discharging his functions.

This provision ensures that victims of domestic violence receive specialized support during legal proceedings.
S.16 - Proceedings to be held in camera

It states that proceedings may be held in camera if the Magistrate considers it necessary or if either party
to the proceedings requests it. This provision ensures privacy and confidentiality for victims of domestic
violence during legal proceedings.

S.17 - Right to reside in a shared household

It states that:

 Every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household, regardless of
whether she has any legal ownership or interest in it.
 The aggrieved person cannot be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by
the respondent, except through legal procedures.

PROTECTION ORDERS (S. 18-22)

S.18 - Protection orders

It states that the Magistrate may issue a protection order if they are prima facie satisfied that domestic
violence has occurred or is likely to occur. The order may prohibit the respondent from:

 Committing any act of domestic violence.

 Aiding or abetting in the commission of domestic violence.
 Entering the workplace, school, or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person.
 Attempting to communicate with the aggrieved person in any form (personal, oral, written, electronic,
or telephonic).
 Alienating assets, operating bank lockers or accounts, including the aggrieved person’s stridhan or
jointly held property.
 Causing harm to dependents, relatives, or anyone assisting the aggrieved person.
 Committing any other act specified in the protection order.

S.19 - Residence orders

It states that the Magistrate may issue a residence order if satisfied that domestic violence has occurred. The
order may:

 Restrict the respondent from dispossessing or disturbing the aggrieved person’s possession of the
shared household.
 Direct the respondent to remove himself from the shared household.
 Restrict the respondent or his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household where the
aggrieved person resides.
 Prevent the respondent from alienating or disposing of the shared household.
 Ensure alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person or direct the respondent to pay rent if
necessary.
 Impose additional conditions to protect the aggrieved person and her children.
 Require the respondent to execute a bond to prevent further domestic violence.
  Direct the police to assist in implementing the order.

S.20 - Monetary reliefs

It states that while disposing of an application under Section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to
pay monetary relief to cover:

 Loss of earnings suffered by the aggrieved person.

 Medical expenses incurred due to domestic violence.
 Loss or damage to property belonging to the aggrieved person.
 Maintenance for the aggrieved person and her children, including orders under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The monetary relief granted must be adequate, fair, and reasonable, considering the standard of living of the
aggrieved person. The Magistrate may order lump sum or monthly payments, and failure to comply may
result in direct deductions from the respondent’s salary or assets.

S.21 - Custody orders

It states that:

 The Magistrate may grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or the
person making an application on her behalf.
 The Magistrate may also specify arrangements for visitation by the respondent.
 If the Magistrate believes that visitation by the respondent may be harmful to the child, they may
refuse to allow such visits.

This provision ensures that children affected by domestic violence receive legal protection and stability.

S.22 - Compensation orders

It states that:

 In addition to other reliefs granted under the Act, the Magistrate may, upon an application by the
aggrieved person, direct the respondent to pay compensation and damages.
 The compensation may cover injuries, mental torture, and emotional distress caused by acts of
domestic violence.

INTERIM RELIEF (S. 23-26)

Sections 23 to 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 deal with interim reliefs
granted by the Magistrate during proceedings:

 Section 23: The Magistrate has the power to grant interim and ex parte orders if the application
prima facie discloses domestic violence. This includes interim maintenance and other reliefs to
protect the aggrieved person.
 Section 24: The Magistrate may direct that the respondent pay costs of the proceedings, including
legal expenses incurred by the aggrieved person.
  Section 25: The Magistrate may alter, modify, or revoke any order granted under the Act if
circumstances change.
 Section 26: Reliefs under the DV Act can be claimed in other legal proceedings, such as those under
the Criminal Procedure Code, Hindu Marriage Act, or any other applicable law.

JURISDICTION (S.27)

It states that:

 The Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate shall have
jurisdiction to grant protection orders and other reliefs under the Act.
 The competent court is determined based on:
o Where the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides, carries on business, or is
employed.
o Where the respondent resides, carries on business, or is employed.
o Where the cause of action has arisen.
 Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.

APPEALS (S.29)

S. 29. Appeal.—There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the
order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be,
whichever is later.

MISSCELANEOUS (S.30-37)

These provisions ensure accountability, enforcement, and protection for victims of domestic violence.

 Section 30: Protection Officers and members of service providers are deemed public servants.

 Section 31: Penalty for breach of protection order—if the respondent violates a protection order, they
may face imprisonment up to one year or a fine up to ₹20,000, or both.

 Section 32: Cognizance and proof—the court may presume that domestic violence has occurred if the
aggrieved person states so in her affidavit.

 Section 33: Penalty for failure to discharge duty—Protection Officers who fail to perform their duties
may face imprisonment up to one year or a fine up to ₹20,000, or both.

 Section 34: Cognizance of offences by Protection Officers—courts can take cognizance of offences
committed by Protection Officers under this Act.

 Section 35: Protection of actions taken in good faith—no legal action can be taken against anyone acting
in good faith under the Act.

 Section 36: Act not in derogation of other laws—this Act does not override other laws that provide
additional protection to women.
 Section 37: Power of Government to make rules—the Central Government has the authority to frame
rules for the effective implementation of the Act.

JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS DV ACT

The judicial approach towards domestic violence in India has evolved significantly over the years, with
courts playing a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing laws to protect victims. Some key aspects of the
judiciary's stance include:

 Expansive Interpretation of the DV Act: Courts have emphasized that the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is a civil law remedy aimed at providing immediate
relief to victims, rather than just punishing offenders.

 Recognition of Economic Abuse: Judicial decisions have acknowledged that domestic violence is not
limited to physical abuse but also includes economic deprivation, emotional abuse, and verbal
harassment.

 Progressive Judgments: The Supreme Court and High Courts have delivered landmark rulings
ensuring that women’s rights under the DV Act are upheld, including residence rights, protection
orders, and monetary relief.

 Sensitivity in Handling Cases: Courts have stressed the need for speedy disposal of domestic violence
cases and have directed authorities to ensure proper implementation of protection orders.

 Intersection with Other Laws: The judiciary has clarified that relief under the DV Act can be sought
alongside other legal remedies, such as those under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and family laws.

LANDMARK CASE LAWS

1. Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik (1986)

It is a significant judgment by the Delhi High Court that deals with the interpretation of Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a wife. This case
played a crucial role in shaping the interpretation of cruelty under Section 498A IPC and reinforced the legal protection
of women against domestic violence.

Key Aspects of the Case

 Background: Sunita Malik filed a complaint against her husband, Inder Raj Malik, and his family under
Section 498A IPC, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry.
  Legal Issues:
o Whether mental and emotional harassment falls under the definition of cruelty in Section
498A IPC.
o Whether the conduct of the husband and his family amounted to cruelty under the law.
o Whether the prosecution successfully proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

 Court’s Decision:
o The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Inder Raj Malik under Section 498A IPC.
o The court emphasized that cruelty includes both physical and mental harm.
o It ruled that constant harassment, taunts, and dowry demands causing mental and emotional
distress constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
o The court reiterated that mental agony and trauma inflicted by a husband and in-laws can be
more damaging than physical harm.

2. Sandhya Wankhede v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhede (2011)

It is a significant Supreme Court ruling that clarified the scope of "respondent" under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

Key Aspects of the Case

 Background: Sandhya Wankhede filed a complaint against her husband and his female relatives under
the DV Act, alleging domestic violence.
 Legal Issue: The Bombay High Court ruled that female relatives of the husband cannot be made
respondents under the DV Act.
 Supreme Court Decision:
o The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling.
o It held that female relatives of the husband can be made respondents under the DV Act.
o The court emphasized that domestic violence is not limited to male perpetrators and that
women can also be held accountable if they contribute to the abuse.
 Impact: This judgment expanded the interpretation of "respondent" under the DV Act, ensuring that
victims can seek protection from abusive female relatives as well.

3. V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012)

It is a landmark Supreme Court ruling that clarified the applicability of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) to incidents that occurred before the Act came into force.

Key Aspects of the Case

 Background: The parties were married in 1980 and lived together until 2005. In 2006, Savita Bhanot
filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, seeking various reliefs.
 Legal Issue: The husband argued that since the alleged acts of domestic violence occurred before the
DV Act was enacted, the wife could not seek relief under the Act.
 Supreme Court Decision:
 o The court rejected the husband's argument.
o It ruled that a woman can seek relief under the DV Act even if the acts of domestic violence
occurred before the Act came into force.
o The judgment reinforced the protective nature of the DV Act, ensuring that victims of domestic
violence are not denied relief due to timing.

This ruling significantly strengthened women’s rights under the DV Act, ensuring that past incidents of
domestic violence are not ignored.

4. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)

It is a landmark Supreme Court ruling that established guidelines for arrests under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty against women by their husbands or relatives.

Key Aspects of the Case

 Background: Arnesh Kumar was accused under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. He sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the lower courts.
 Legal Issue: The Supreme Court examined whether arrests under Section 498A IPC were being
misused and whether police officers were arbitrarily arresting accused persons without proper
investigation.
 Supreme Court Decision:
o The court criticized indiscriminate arrests under Section 498A IPC.
o It ruled that police officers must follow proper procedures before making an arrest.
o The judgment laid down guidelines for arrests, stating that police must conduct a preliminary
inquiry before arresting a person accused of an offense punishable with less than seven years of
imprisonment.
o The court directed that Magistrates must ensure compliance with these guidelines before
authorizing detention.
 Impact:
o The ruling curbed arbitrary arrests under Section 498A IPC.
o It reinforced the rights of accused persons and ensured that due process is followed.
o The guidelines are now referred to as the "Arnesh Kumar Guidelines", which apply to all
offenses punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment.

This case significantly influenced criminal procedure in India, ensuring that arrests are not made casually
without proper investigation.

5. Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2018)

It is a significant Supreme Court ruling that clarified the right of women in live-in relationships to seek
maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

Key Aspects of the Case

 Background: Lalita Toppo, who was in a live-in relationship, sought maintenance from her partner.
However, she was denied relief under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which
applies only to legally wedded wives.
  Legal Issue: The question before the Supreme Court was whether women in live-in relationships could
seek maintenance under the DV Act.

 Supreme Court Decision:

o The court ruled that even if a woman is not a legally wedded wife, she can still seek
maintenance under the DV Act.
o The judgment emphasized that economic abuse is a form of domestic violence, and women in
live-in relationships should not be denied financial support.
o The court reinforced that the DV Act provides broader protection beyond traditional marriage.

Impact of the Judgment

 This ruling expanded the scope of legal protection for women in non-marital relationships.
 It ensured that financial dependence does not prevent women from seeking justice and support.
 The judgment strengthened the rights of women facing domestic violence, regardless of their marital
status.

6. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, (2021) 15SCC730

It is a significant Supreme Court ruling that addresses the conflict between the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007.

Key Aspects of the Case

 Background: The appellant, S. Vanitha, was the daughter-in-law of the respondents, who were her
estranged husband's parents. They filed an application under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking
her eviction from the shared household.
 Legal Issue: The authorities under the Senior Citizens Act ordered her eviction, but she argued that she
had a right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act.
 Supreme Court Decision:
o The court harmonized the provisions of both Acts, ruling that a woman’s right to residence
under the DV Act cannot be overridden by eviction orders under the Senior Citizens Act.
o It emphasized that both laws must be interpreted in a manner that protects the rights of
senior citizens while ensuring that women facing domestic violence are not left without
shelter.
o The court set aside the eviction order, allowing the appellant to pursue her remedies under
the DV Act.

Impact of the Judgment

 This ruling clarified the interplay between the DV Act and the Senior Citizens Act, ensuring that
women’s residence rights are protected.
 It reinforced the importance of balancing the rights of senior citizens and victims of domestic
violence.
 The judgment is now a key precedent in cases involving shared household disputes.
 7. PrabhaTyagi v.KamleshDevi,(2022) 8SCC90

It is a significant Supreme Court ruling that clarified the scope of relief available under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

Key Aspects of the Case

 Background: The appellant, Prabha Tyagi, filed a case under the DV Act seeking relief. The lower
courts dismissed her claim, stating that she had not submitted a domestic incident report from a
Protection Officer.
 Legal Issue: The question before the Supreme Court was whether a domestic incident report is
mandatory for seeking relief under the DV Act.
 Supreme Court Decision:
o The court ruled that a domestic incident report is not mandatory for an aggrieved person to
seek relief under the DV Act.
o It emphasized that the Magistrate has the discretion to grant relief based on the facts of the
case, even if no report is submitted.
o The judgment reinforced that procedural technicalities should not prevent victims from
accessing justice.

Impact of the Judgment

 This ruling expanded access to legal remedies for victims of domestic violence.
 It ensured that women are not denied relief due to procedural gaps.
 The judgment strengthened the protective framework of the DV Act, making it more accessible.

8. Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2020)

It is a landmark Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded the interpretation of "shared household"
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

Key Aspects of the Case

 Background: Sneha Ahuja, the daughter-in-law of the appellant, was residing in a house owned by her
father-in-law, Satish Chander Ahuja. After marital disputes, she was asked to vacate the premises.

 Legal Issue: The question before the Supreme Court was whether a woman has the right to reside in a
house owned by her in-laws, even if her husband does not have ownership rights over the property.
 Supreme Court Decision:
o The court overturned previous restrictive interpretations and ruled that a woman can claim
residence rights in a household owned by her in-laws if she has lived there in a domestic
relationship.
o It expanded the definition of "shared household" under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, ensuring
that women are not arbitrarily evicted.
o The judgment overruled the precedent set in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007), which had
previously limited residence rights to properties owned or rented by the husband.

Impact of the Judgment

  This ruling strengthened women’s rights under the DV Act, ensuring greater protection against
eviction.
 It clarified that ownership of the property is not the sole criterion for determining a woman's right to
reside in a shared household.
 The judgment is now a key precedent in cases involving domestic violence and residence rights.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

Legal TERRORISM

ARNESH KUMAR CASE GUIDELINES for arrest

SATISH CHANDRA AHUJA CASE “DEFINITION OF SHARED HOUSEHOLD”

Prabha tyagi case – residence

Lalita toppo case – live in relationship

Means judiciary time and again reinforced the specificity for the application of the act to
avoid misuse of the same and defined the terms precisely with clarifying the procedure.