Case Law Summaries

Defending Women Against Domestic Violence

Highlights of the DV Act

It has been 15 years since the historic legislation, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act for short) was enacted to provide speedy remedies to women who are subjected to domestic violence. This much needed statute acknowledges a woman’s right to reside in a violence free environment both in her parental home as well as in her matrimonial home and provides remedial measures in the event that this right is violated. It is a gender specific enactment and hence the remedies provided under the Act can be availed of only by women.  The most important features of this enactment are  :  

  • It provides a wide definition of violence which includes physical. Emotional, sexual and economic abuse.
  • It provides a statutory right to shelter under the notion of ‘shared household’. Though the statute does not provide the victim / survivor title or interest in the dwelling house, it grants legal recognition to her right of residence and protects her against dispossession through injunction and protection orders.
  • The Act stipulates that economic abuse constitutes domestic violence. Extending this definition further, the courts have held that non-payment of maintenance or neglect to maintain constitutes economic abuse. So women who are deserted by their husbands  can avail of the remedy of maintenance under this Act in a manner similar to S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In fact remedies under this Act are wider than under S.125 CrPC and the criterion for securing maintenance is far more liberal.
  • It provides for compensation for injuries or loss suffered due to domestic violence.
  • A divorced Muslim woman can avail of her rights under the statute, in addition to her rights under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights Upon Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWA).
  • It secures the rights of women whose marriages are not valid under the law or those who have never gone through a formal ceremony of marriage but have been living in marriage-like relationships. Proof of a marriage is not required for filing proceedings under the Act.
  • The Act provides for summary proceedings and expeditious reliefs. The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court and shall dispose off such application within a period of sixty days from the date of the first hearing. This has been mentioned in clauses 4 and 5 of Section 12 of DV Act. Though this seldom happens, magistrates courts are under pressure to give short dates and pass orders expeditiously.

The remedies which can be claimed under the Act are injunctions or restraining orders, protection orders, provisions for shelter or alternate accommodation, maintenance, medical expenses, compensation and interim child custody. Though these remedies are not new to family law, the Act provides for these various reliefs to be claimed under one umbrella statute and relieves women from the cumbersome and time consuming task of having to approach different courts for different remedies and avoids multiplicity of proceedings.

The Act is a civil statute located within the magistrates’ (criminal) courts. This has been done to provide proximity and easy access to women victims of domestic violence and to ensure speedy justice as compared to civil courts. An interesting feature is that the law of injunction has moved from  civil courts to magistrates courts. Even rights such as maintenance and child custody can be secured under this Act due to its wide scope. This has resulted in magistrates’ courts emerging as a major forum for women’s rights than the family courts in resolving matrimonial disputes, and in its wake the role of family courts, in resolving matrimonial disputes seems to be diminishing. This is because the proceedings under the criminal law offer quicker remedies that the family courts.

The provisions of this Act can be used in addition to other laws such as criminal provisions of cruelty under S.498A, IPC or divorce proceedings in civil / family courts. A divorced Muslim woman can avail of this statute while filing for a lump sum settlement under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce Act, 1986 (MWA) Here the provision of DV Act can be used to avail of interim reliefs even while the proceedings under MWA are pending. 

The Act envisages two major support mechanisms 

  • State appointed, trained and sensitised Protection Officers (PO) to aid women in accessing courts without having to deped upon professional legal help from lawyers.
  • A specific role for NGOs as Service Providers (SP) who can intervene on behalf of women during court proceedings. 

In its initial stage, the Act which came into force in 2006 met with several stumbling blocks. Many a times the stake holders  themselves were unaware of their roles and responsibilities under this statute. Though trainings were conducted to sensitise the officers appointed under the Act, the trainers themselves were unaware of the beneficial provisions under the Act, and its efficacy varied a great deal from state to state and court to court. So the initial years were full of confusion but gradually the confusions were dispelled and clarity regarding the novel provisions of the scheme of the Act dawned in and uniformity regarding its implementation was brought in. 

In this compilation, we focus on the journey of the DV Act through the path of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court in succeeding to interpret this careful legislation through a feminist lens.

About this Compilation

Majlis team of women lawyers have been successfully practising under the Act since its inception and we believe that trained and sensitive lawyers can make a difference in defending the rights of victims / survivors. With this in view we have organised a series of trainings for women lawyers in district towns of Maharashtra and created resource material to equip them to adequately defend the rights of women by using the provisions of the DV Act. This compilation is an extension of our efforts to share best practices and positive rulings that can be used while defending women by lawyers, service providers, judicial officers and institutions which provide training to various stake holders.

A glance at this material will give a fairly good idea about how the Act has unfolded on the ground and expanded the scope of the provisions of the statute, and brought in clarity regarding certain definitions used in the Act.  It will help to clarify the latest legal positions on some critical issues which are recurring themes in trial court litigation. It is meant to provide a ready referencer to all stake holders who use the provisions of this Act to help women to secure reliefs. 

Since you will find only positive and pro-women rulings here which are meant to aid lawyers and other stake holders while defending women to obtain reliefs under this Act, it may paint a rosy picture to the reader that courts generally interpret the provisions of the Act in favour of women.  Hence it is necessary to add a note of caution that every case law which is summarised here is a hard won victory. These cases have travelled from the magistrates’ courts to the sessions courts, on to the High Court and at times, even to the Supreme Court.  Judicial interpretations have not always bee linear strengthening women’s rights. The outcome depends not just on facts and statutory provisions but also on the sensitivity of judicial officers and the skill and capabilities of the lawyers. Hence there may be equal number of cases where the judges have expressed a contrary view.  To find these, users may have to conduct their own independent research.

For convenience sake, we have categorised the cases under specific sub-heads. But this categorisation is not rigid and issues tend to overlap. A particular judgement may have dealt with a range of issues. Hence when there is a need to cite caselaw during court proceedings, it would be prudent to select all cases which deal with the particular issue at hand although they may have been listed under other corresponding sections.

The research work for this compilation was carried out by a team of lawyers and law interns at Majlis and draws from our experience in trial and appeal courts and reflects the accurate legal position till the end of 2020.

Parties to Proceedings

Divorced Women are Entitled to Reliefs under the Act

The husband and wife were divorced but the wife stayed in the matrimonial house itself after that. It was after she was forcefully driven out of the matrimonial house that she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking residential orders. The husband filed a petition for discharge. The magistrate allowed the wife’s application stating that there was a past relationship and discharged the husband’s petition. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court where the part of the order rejecting the husband’s petition was stayed. Thereafter the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. Upholding the magistrate’s order, the Bombay High Court held that though whether the wife is entitled to protection or not in a given fact situation would be for the concerned court to decide even a divorced wife is entitled to invoke the provisions of the DV Act.

The husband refused to maintain his wife and their child. So the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act. The husband challenged the application contending that it was not maintainable since they were divorced but this contention was rejected by the magistrate. Aggrieved, the husband filed a revision in the sessions court where the magistrate’s order was quashed. Against this, the wife filed a writ petition in the High Court.

Setting aside the sessions court’s order, the Bombay High Court held that the defining clause in section 2 of the DV Act stipulates that persons who “live” or ” have at any point of time lived together in a shared household”, indicating past matrimonial relationship. Nowhere in the section is the word ‘wife’ mentioned. Further, the definition has mentioned the word “maintenance”. Therefore, if there is an order of the court to pay maintenance to the “aggrieved person” then if such maintenance is stopped or the aggrieved person is deprived of such maintenance, it can be considered as an economic abuse.

Since the marriage, constant demands for dowry were made by the husband as well as his relatives. As the wife’s family were unable to meet these demands, the dissatisfied husband filed for judicial separation in the family court, which was granted. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act seeking seizure of stridhan articles from the husband. The magistrate held that the application was not maintainable.  The wife challenged this in the sessions court, which was dismissed. Thereafter she filed a revision in the Tripura High Court. This too was dismissed. Hence, she appealed in the Supreme Court.

While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that, “The definition of “domestic violence” covers a range of violence which takes within its sweep “economic abuse”. The words “economic abuse”, as the provision would show, has many facets. The status between the parties was not severed after the decree of judicial separation. The concept of “continuing offence” gets attracted from the date of deprivation of stridhan, for neither the husband nor any other family members can have any right over the wife’s  stridhan. They remain only as custodians. The wife can submit an application to the protection officer for one or more of the reliefs under the DV Act even after the judicial separation. The Court observed that the application was not barred by limitation and the appeal was allowed.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband for maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay the wife Rs.6,000/- p.m. as maintenance and also Rs.3,000/-p.m. as rent of her alternative accommodation. Thereafter, the wife filed a matrimonial suit before the family court praying for annulment of the marriage on the ground of husband’s refusal to consummate the marriage and accordingly, the marriage was annulled. The husband filed a revision application in the High Court for quashing the proceedings initiated by the wife under the  DV Act on the ground that it was not maintainable since the marriage has been annulled.

Dismissing the revision application filed by the husband, the Calcutta High Court held that the wife was an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 2(a) of the DV Act since she lived with the husband in the matrimonial home. Though the wife filed the matrimonial suit, the proceedings filed under section 12 of the DV Act are maintainable under the law as the application was filed before the annulment of the marriage. 

Since their marriage. the husband subjected the wife to cruelty and harassment. Later he also obtained divorce by fraudulent means. Despite this, they stayed in the shared household along with their daughter. The cruelty and harassment continued even after the fraudulent divorce. So the wife filed for reliefs under the DV Act. The magistrate directed the husband to restrain from committing  domestic violence on his wife, pay her an amount of Rs.7,500/- p.m. and Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the daughter as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the wife for the cruelty he had inflicted on her. The husband challenged this in the sessions court which held that the wife was still in a domestic relation with the husband and there was enough evidence to conclude that she was subjected to domestic violence. Thereafter, the husband preferred revision in the Bombay High Court.

 Dismissing the petition, the Bombay High Court held that there was ample evidence before the two courts below to come to a plausible conclusion that though the decree of divorce was obtained, the husband and the wife continued to cohabit in the same household and hence her application was maintainable.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m. for maintenance and Rs.800/-p.m. for rent of alternate accommodation to the wife. Thereafter the husband initiated a matrimonial suit for dissolution of his marriage and obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce. Then he filed an application under section 25 of the DV Act seeking modification or revocation of the order contending that their marriage was dissolved which was rejected. Thereafter he filed an appeal in the High Court. 

While dismissing the appeal, the Calcutta High Court held that the wife was in a domestic relationship with the husband. ‘change in circumstances’ and ‘change of marital status’ are quite different. A divorced wife has a right to claim and get maintenance allowance. The right continues till her remarriage. The DV Act provides additional rights and remedies to the aggrieved person. 

Divorced Muslim Women are Entitled to Reliefs under the Act

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking protection orders, maintenance and compensation The magistrate directed the husband to restrain from committing any acts of violence against the wife and pay an amount of Rs.4,000/-p.m. as maintenance and Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the wife. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court where the husband was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/-p.m. as maintenance to the wife, Rs.1,500/-p.m. as maintenance to the daughter and Rs.1,500/-p.m. as rent for alternative accommodation. Thereafter, both the wife and the husband filed an appeal in the High Court. 

The husband contended he had divorced his wife in 2005 and being a divorced wife, she was not entitled to any relief under the DV Act and that she ought to have filed proceedings under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce Act, 1986 (MWA). 

It was contended on behalf of the wife divorced Muslim women are not barred seeking reliefs under the DV Act abd S,26 of the DV Act makes it amply clear that DV Act is in addition to and not in derrogation of any other law for the time being in force and thus the wife has rights under both the Acts.  

After examining the various provisions of the Act the court concluded that divorced women, including divorced Muslim women are entitled to reliefs under the Act. Dismissing the husband’s contention, the Rajasthan High Court held that divorced Muslim women are entitled under the Act. The husband could not have asked for relief in the present case since the factum of domestic violence and domestic relationship as defined in the DV Act were established and they are the findings of facts of courts below, which are not liable to be interfered with by this court, in the revisional jurisdiction. As far as power of the courts below to grant relief this Court finds the said relief to be fully within the parameters of provisions of the DV Act. The orders of the lower courts were upheld.

The wife obtained an ex parte Khula (Divorce initiated by the wife as per the Muslim Personal Law) from her husband because he did not maintain her and their minor child. The husband filed an application in the family court to set aside the Khula. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband for maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the wife as interim maintenance. The husband challenged this in the sessions court which held that the application filed by the wife was not maintainable because she accepted that she is divorced and thus there is no domestic relationship between them. The wife filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was also dismissed. 

Thereafter she appealed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that even if the wife obtained ex-parte Khula from the Mufti, the application under section 12 of the DV Act was maintainable.  The judgments passed by the High Court and the sessions court were set aside and the magistrate’s order was upheld.

From the time of her marriage, the wife suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. So she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against them seeking residence order, monetary relief, maintenance and compensation. The application was  registered and  a notice was served on the respondents. The husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law filed a petition for setting aside the order and for quashing the entire proceedings in the High Court, pleading that there was no report from the protection officer, and that there is no date arising out of the cause of action.

While dismissing the petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a cause of action to an aggrieved woman arises everytime when she is subjected to domestic violence. Moreover, the expression, cause of action, is universally understood to mean the bundle of facts upon which the reliefs have been sought from a court. Further, it is clear that the divorce took place after the institution of the proceedings under the DV Act, so the application filed by the wife was maintainable.

The parties were divorced through provisions of the Muslim Personal Law. Thereafter the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband for maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the wife as maintenance. The husband filed a  revision in the  High Court for quashing this  order.

Dismissing the petition, the Gauhati High Court held that an act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the DV Act. There can be no dispute that a divorcee can file an application under the provisions of the DV Act. 

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband. Simultaneously an arbitration proceeding was going on as per the clause in the nikahnama (marriage contract). The magistrate directed payment of interim maintenance to the wife. The husband challenged this in the sessions court contending that in view of the arbitration clause the complaint under the DV Act cannot be entertained. The sessions court held that the DV Act is a secular legislation and a Mohammedan wife is entitled to reliefs under the DV Act as also under the Muslim Women’s Act. The husband challenged this order in the Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court held that the issue of maintainability can be decided notwithstanding the husband’s contention that the relationship of marriage was contractual and the fact that the parties had approached the Reconciliation and Arbitration Board or that he had already divorced his wife. This does not take away the right of the wife to file an application under the DV Act.

The widow filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her in-laws seeking monetary reliefs, maintenance and compensation. The in-laws filed an appeal in the High Court contending that the husband and wife were divorced a long time ago and hence the application was not maintainable.

Dismissing the petition, the Telangana High Court held that the domestic relationship between the wife and the deceased husband did not cease upon her obtaining a divorce and the application under section 12 of the DV Act, was maintainable in relation to the past acts of domestic violence allegedly committed by the husband and his family members. Mere grant of a divorce would not absolve the husband’s family members from the criminal misdeeds allegedly committed by them during the existence of a domestic relationship. 

Unsuccessful divorce cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DV application

The husband had filed a petition for divorce in the family court and simultaneously the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act seeking monetary relief. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the wife and the daughter and Rs.4,000/-p.m. for their minor son. The husband’s petition for divorce was dismissed. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which held that as the husband had initiated divorce proceedings before the enactment of the DV Act,  hence the Act can not be invoked by the wife to claim reliefs.

Thereafter,  the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. Setting aside the order of the sessions court, the High Court held that since the divorce was unsuccessful, there was no reason to deny her the remedies under the DV Act.  Thereafter, the husband filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that even if the divorce was granted, the wife’s rights were not affected because women in past domestic relationships were clearly entitled to relief under the DV Act.

Women in past Matrimonial Relationships are Entitled

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking protection orders, monetary reliefs, residence orders and maintenance. The Bombay High Court held that an interpretation which furthers the purpose of the DV Act must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Thus, even if the wife was in the past in a relationship, she would be entitled to invoke the provisions of the DV Act on the basis of continuing cause of action. The husband contended that the alleged domestic abuse took place before the commencement of the DV Act and that it is not maintainable. The magistrate rejected this contention stating that the marriage is still subsisting. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the High Court. Dismissing the petition, the Bombay High Court held that even if the woman was in the past in a relationship with the appellant, she would be entitled to invoke the provisions of the DV Act on the basis of continuing cause of action.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act on the ground that her husband had stopped paying an amount of Rs.25,000/- p.m. as maintenance for their daughter since 2011. The husband questioned the maintainability of the application on the sole ground that the parties were divorced in 2010 and were not sharing the same household. The husband’s contention that the application was not maintainable was dismissed by the magistrate. The husband thereafter challenged the said order in a criminal revision before the sessions judge, which was allowed and the order passed by the magistrate holding the application was maintainable, was quashed.

The aggrieved wife filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court which held that maintenance also relates back to past matrimonial relationships. Hence the husband was obligated to maintain his children under the DV Act. The order of the  magistrate was upheld and the order of the sessions court was set aside. 

The wife was constrained to leave the matrimonial home due to domestic violence. So she filed for maintenance, under section 125, Cr.PC. Thereafter due to an amicable settlement between the parties, in 2006 she returned to the matrimonial home. But within three months, she was again subjected to cruelty and driven out of her matrimonial home. So she filed a criminal case against the husband and his family members under section 498-A, IPC. However, the husband and his family members were acquitted in the said proceedings. 

Thereafter, the wife filed an application under the DV Act which was decided in her favour. The husband filed a revision application in the High Court, challenging the judgment of the sessions judge which had dismissed his appeal against the order of protection granted to the wife and child, under section 18 of the DV Act. The husband contended that the wife had left the matrimonial home in 2003 itself, and there was no domestic relationship in existence within the meaning of the definitions of ‘’Domestic Relationship”, “Aggrieved Women” and “Shared Household” as stipulated under the Act. While dismissing his application, the Bombay High Court held that to interpret the said provisions of the Act to mean that only subsisting domestic relationships are covered under it, would result in constricting the scope of the DV Act. 

Widows are Entitled to Relief under the Act

After the husband expired, his widow was residing at her parental home as she was not allowed to stay in her matrimonial home. So she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her father-in-law for residence and maintenance. The magistrate directed the father-in-law to pay interim maintenance to the widow and her three children as well as to allow her to live along with him in the shared household. The father-in-law filed a revision against this order.

Dismissing the petition, the Allahabad High Court held that the aggrieved person, the daughter-in-law, who is a widow, is entitled to use, enjoy and have access to the shared household. The prohibition or putting any restriction comes within the definition of domestic violence as provided under section 3 of the DV Act. Section 17 of the Act also provides that the aggrieved woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same and the aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it, save in accordance with the procedure established by law. 

An application under section 12 of the DV Act was filed by the widow against her brothers-in-law. There was a joint family business with all the brothers by the name of Patel Mangal Karyalaya. Nilesh, her deceased husband, was looking after the business. After his death, it was taken over by his brother which deprived the widow of her source of income.

The magistrate partly allowed the application filed by the widow. The respondents were directed to restore possession of Patel Mangal Karyalaya to her. But her claim for monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- was rejected. Both the widow and the respondent no. 1 filed criminal appeals, challenging the order of the trial court. The sessions court passed an adverse judgment against the widow. So she filed a revision application in the High Court. The Bombay High Court quashed the  judgment passed by the sessions judge and restored the judgment of the magistrate which had partly allowed the application filed by the widow.

The widow had filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her brothers-in-laws for maintenance. The magistrate  passed an order directing the respondents to pay Rs.5,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance. An appeal was filed by the brothers-in-law before the sessions court that set aside the order passed by the magistrate and held that the brothers-in-law are not under an obligation to pay maintenance to the widow. 

In an appeal filed by the widow, the Bombay High Court held that the widow has been granted an independent remedy under the DV Act. The sessions court did not acknowledge the fact that the applicant was a widow and by way of interim maintenance, the respondents were obligated to pay maintenance to her. Prima facie, the directions issued by the magistrate could not be treated as unreasonable. The High Court quashed and set aside the session court’s order and the order passed by the magistrate, directing the  respondents individually and collectively, to pay interim maintenance to the widow was restored. 

Mothers are Entitled to Reliefs under the Act

The son and daughter-in-law physically and mentally harassed the widowed mother and also tried to take away her business. So she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against them for an order of protection and maintenance. The magistrate directed the son not to commit any acts of domestic violence, stop communicating with his mother in any manner and vacate the disputed premises. The order was challenged by the son in the sessions court where the part of the order directing the son to vacate the house, was set aside. Aggrieved, the mother filed a revision in the Kerala High Court. The revision petition was allowed and the order of the magistrate was restored. The son was directed to vacate the premises forthwith.

The mother filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her son for maintenance. The magistrate directed the son to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- p.m. as monetary relief including medical expenses and also Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental torture and emotional distress caused to her.  The son preferred a criminal appeal in the sessions court which was dismissed. He then filed a revision in the Calcutta High Court. The High Court dismissed the same and held that the courts below have rightly come to their conclusion and there was no error in holding that the mother was entitled to get the reliefs under the DV Act.

Women can be “Respondents” under the DV Act

The wife was assaulted by the husband after marriage. So she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws seeking maintenance, monetary reliefs, residence orders. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- p.m. to the wife as interim maintenance and restrained the respondents from dispossessing her from the household.. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which was dismissed. Therefore, the husband filed an application for quashing in the High Court which too, was dismissed. Meanwhile the respondents filed an application under section 29 of the DV Act in the sessions court contending that the wife’s application was not maintainable as women cannot be made respondents under the DV Act. The sessions court allowed it and set aside the magistrate’s order. Aggrieved, the wife filed a writ petition in the High Court.

 

Upholding the order of the sessions court, the Bombay High Court directed the wife to vacate her matrimonial home. Hence, she filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. Dismissing the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that even though the expression “female’’ is absent in section 2(q) and also the proviso, if the legislatures wished to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, it would have been done specifically. No restrictive meaning has been given to the word ‘’relative’’ nor has the word been defined in the DV Act to mean only males.

The wife filed an application under the DV Act seeking various reliefs against her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law approached the High Court contending that the application was not maintainable against her as she was a female and  hence did not fall within the definition of respondent u/s 2(q) of the DV Act. 

The Calcutta High Court held that from the definition of section 2(q), it would be apparent that although section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage. The court held that if the legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. 

No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the DV Act, to make it specific to males only. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the DV Act and hence the petition of the mother-in-law was dismissed 

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her sisters-in-law. The contention of the sisters-in-law was that they are residing with their own in-laws in another city and hence they have no relationship with the aggrieved lady and further that women cannot be added as respondents. The magistrate rejected their contentions. Hence they filed a petition under section 482 CrPC in the High Court on the said grounds for quashing proceedings against them. The Orissa High Court held that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the proviso to section 2(q) of theDV Act, the complaint against the female relatives is maintainable. 

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and other female in-laws. The female in-laws filed a petition in the High Court stating that a woman cannot be respondent under DV Act. Dismissing the petition, the Karnataka High court held that the DV Act does not define the term respondent as compulsorily male. The Act states that aggrieved women can complain against her husband or husband’s relatives. The term relative is not restrictive in any manner which excludes female relatives. 

The mother and the daughter  filed an application under the DV Act against the brother/son, and his wife, and two sisters/daughters. The respondents filed an application for discharge on the grounds that an application under the DV Act can be filed only against male members. The magistrate dismissed it. Thereafter the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court.

The Bombay High Court discharged the respondents. Aggrieved, the mother and daughter filed an application in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 2(q) of the DV Act. The Supreme Court held that the words adult male in section 2(q) of the DV Act will stand deleted since these words do not comply with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the  provision to section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stood deleted.

Men Cannot file under the DV Act

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking residence order. The magistrate directed the husband to sign a bond of good conduct and stay with the wife on the ground floor. The wife challenged this in the sessions court that rejected the magistrate’s order holding that the husband and wife stayed in separate floors for a long time and that the sudden desire of the husband to seek such a relief could only be to further harass the wife. The husband then filed a writ petition in the High Court.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court  held that the DV Act did not provide any ground for preferring any such application. The court further observed that the main object of the DV Act is to protect women from violence inflicted by men and women. 

Duration of Marriage

No time period stipulated to Initiate Proceedings

The wife was subjected to intense physical and mental cruelty by her husband since her marriage in 2002, but she stayed on because of the child. In 2012, in order to prepare herself for judicial service, she took a house on rent to attend coaching classes and concentrate on her preparations. Thereafter, the husband did not allow her to enter the matrimonial home or meet her daughter. He also filed divorce proceedings against her. In 2016, the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act for monthly maintenance and compensation. The husband pleaded that the application is not maintainable since she had left the matrimonial home in 2012 and there was no domestic relationship between them thereafter. The magistrate dismissed his application for quashing the proceedings. So he approached the High Court.

Dismissing the petition, the Orissa High Court held that there is nothing in the DV Act which stipulated that an application under section 12 has to be filed within one year from the date of alleged cessation of domestic relationship between the parties and hence the contention raised by the husband could not be accepted.

Duration of Cohabitation not Relevant

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking residence orders and return of stridhan. The magistrate and the sessions court rejected her application holding that there is lack of proof to show that they had resided together in the shared household. Aggrieved, the wife appealed to the High Court contending that even if there is evidence to prove that they had resided together in the said premises for some period of time, it was sufficient for it to qualify as a “shared household”. Allowing the appeal, the Calcutta High Court held that according to the spirit of the benevolent provisions under the DV Act, the definition of ‘shared household’ is not confined within the meaning of present ownership and/or tenancy rights in the household. It is merely illustrative and not exhaustive. Even if the wife and husband had resided in the premises for a short period of time, it would qualify as “shared household” under the Act. 

The wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial home just two days after her marriage due to mental harassment and character assasination by her husband. After about a year, she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband, his mother and uncle. The husband filed a criminal application for quashing the proceedings contending that the parties were not in a domestic relationship because the wife stayed only for two days in the matrimonial home and had filed the application after a year of leaving the matrimonial home. 

The Bombay High Court observed that no period has been stipulated under section 2(f) of the DV Act regarding the duration of the  domestic relationship and held that misinterpreting the plain language of the statutory provisions is a violation. It would be contrary to the statutory scheme and the decisions of the Apex Court, that remedies under the DV Act would cease to exist if they are not claimed within a stipulated period of time. The wife’s application against the husband’s uncle was quashed. But she was allowed to proceed with her application against her husband and mother-in-law under section 12 of the DV Act.

Non-consummated Marriage is within the Purview of the Act

The wife was harassed for dowry by the husband and his parents, ever since her marriage. Unable to bear the harassment, she left the matrimonial house and filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking maintenance. The husband contended that his wife was not staying with him and that their marriage was not consummated, hence, the proceedings were not maintainable. Rejecting this contention, the magistrate directed the husband to pay the wife an amount of  Rs.10,000/- p.m. as maintenance and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental torture. The husband challenged this in the sessions court which upheld the order of the magistrate. A revision was filed in the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed the revision application filed by the husband and held that the trial court’s observation was  just and that it does not require any interference.

Due to mental and physical cruelty inflicted upon her by her husband, the wife left her matrimonial home within 20 days of their marriage. Later, she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act for maintenance. The husband contended that the application was not maintainable as the wife had hardly stayed with him for a few days and the marriage was not consummated. Rejecting this contention, the magistrate directed the husband to pay Rs.4,000/- p.m. to the wife as interim maintenance. The husband appealed in the High Court to stay the order. Dismissing his appeal, the Bombay High Court upheld the magistrate’s order stating that it found no error in it.

Jurisdiction of Courts

Temporary Residence Creates Jurisdiction

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act and a complaint under section 498A IPC in Lucknow against her husband and in-laws. Her husband’s contention was that no incident of domestic violence was committed in Lucknow and that the wfe was not residing there at the time of filing of application was dismissed by the magistrate. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal against both the cases. wherein the court held that as far as the complaint under section 498A IPC is concerned, the wife was compelled to reside in Lucknow as result of violence by husband and in-laws and she was not residing happily there. The same was a continuing offence against her and hence a case under section 498A was held to be maintainable in the court at Lucknow. As far as the application under the  DV Act was concerned, the court again came to the wife’s rescue and stated that under section 27 of the DV Act, she can file within the jurisdiction where she was presently residing as the same created a temporary residence and hence the court at Lucknow has the jurisdiction to conduct the trial.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband. Dismissing her application, the magistrate held that the wife was a permanent resident of the U.K. prior to her wedding and the domestic relationship, domestic violence and shared household continue to be in the U.K. Therefore, her application cannot be entertained by Indian courts. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the sessions court which was dismissed on the same grounds. Thereafter she moved the High Court. 

Partly allowing her appeal, the Delhi High Court held that simply because the wife returned to India either temporarily or permanently, it will not disentitle her to invoke the provisions of the DV Act in India, if she has a case on merits. 

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband at Varanasi where her father resides. The jurisdiction was challenged by the husband both in the magistrate and sessions court where it was dismissed holding that the proceedings are maintainable under section 27(a) of the DV Act. Aggrieved, the husband filed a revision in the High Court contending that the wife has filed other criminal proceedings in Bihar and hence she cannot file the DV application in Varanasi.

The Allahabad High Court upheld the orders of both the magistrate and sessions court and directed to proceed with the matter under section 27(a) since it prima facie appears that the wife’s father resides there, the divorce petition filed by the husband has her address as Varanasi, as well as in other ongoing matters. The High Court concluded that therefore, Varanasi is the wife’s temporary address.

The mother was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her son and daughter-in-law and was driven out of her matrimonial home at Berhampur so she took shelter at her daughter’s home at Phulbani. There she filed a complaint under section 12 of the DV Act. The son and daughter-in-law filed an application in the High Court to transfer the  proceedings to Berhampur. Dismissing the application, the Orissa High Court, held that the legislature, under section 27 of the DV Act has given options to an aggrieved woman to institute proceedings even from a place where she resides temporarily. The word “temporarily” means not lasting, but existing, serving for a limited period of time only and which is not permanent. A temporary residence is a temporary dwelling place of the aggrieved person who has, for the time being, decided to make that place as her home.

The incidents of domestic violence started in Australia which left the wife with no choice but to return to Delhi. After some time, the husband and her in-laws came to Delhi and assaulted her physically. So she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act. The husband filed an application for quashing in the High Court contending that the alleged acts of domestic violence took place in Australia while the application under the DV Act was filed in Delhi, hence, it was not maintainable. Dismissing the application, the Delhi High Court, imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the husband and laid emphasis on section 2(f), 2(s), 2(g) and section 27 of the DV Act which grants jurisdiction to the place where the wife temporarily resides.

The wife filed an application against her husband under section 12 of the DV Act in Bengaluru. The husband disputed the jurisdiction on the ground that the wife ordinarily resides at Challakere and not Bengaluru, hence, it is not maintainable. The magistrate held that she was temporarily residing in Bengaluru on the date of submission of the complaint. However, the sessions court set aside the order of the magistrate and held that the complaint was not maintainable. 

Thereafter, the Karnataka High Court set aside the judgement of the sessions court and restored the judgment of the magistrate. The High Court distinguished between section 27 of the DV Act and section 19 of the HMA. It also held that the sessions court misconstrued and misapplied section 27 by stating that permanent residence must be established. Further, the Court stated that section 27 in unambiguous terms provides that the petition is maintainable either at the place where the aggrieved woman permanently or temporarily resides. There was abundant material to prove that the wife was residing in Bengaluru on the date on which the petition was presented.

The wife was ill-treated, harassed and tortured for dowry by her husband. So she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and went to stay in Rampur to live peacefully. There she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband. The husband contended that the wife was not even a temporary resident of Rampur, hence, it was not maintainable. The magistrate dismissed the husband’s contention. In appeal in the sessions court, the magistrate’s order was set aside Thereafter, the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. The Allahabad High Court, held that the session’s court erred in law by completely ignoring the distinction between the provisions of sections 27(a) and  27(b)-27(c) on the other hand. 

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act at Bengaluru seeking maintenance and compensation. The husband challenged this contending that the wife was not a resident of Bengaluru and that there was no report of the service provider. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to his wife. The husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which was dismissed. Thereafter he filed an appeal in the High Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Karnataka High Court held that the wife is entitled to file the case where she resides temporarily or permanently. The High Court also held that the report of service providers is not compulsory hence, procedure under section 12 was properly followed by the lower court. 

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and also under section 125 of CrPC. The husband disputed the maintainability of the application. The magistrate held that the wife is temporarily residing at district Hingoli, hence, it is maintainable. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the lower Court and held that the word “resides” under both the DV Act and under section125 of CrPC is to be interpreted/construed liberally so as not to defeat the common object of both the statutes of providing sustenance to an aggrieved wife. 

The wife was subjected to cruelty by her husband in her marital home which compelled her to leave the home and stay in her parental home. There she filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act at Bengaluru. The husband challenged it but the magistrate held that the court has temporary jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The sessions court upheld the same. Thereafter the husband filed an appeal in the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Karnataka High Court laid emphasis on section 2(1), 12 and 27(a) of the DV Act and  relied on various legal precedents which had already clarified this point.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and his relatives. The husband filed an application for quashing in the Karnataka High Court contending that the matrimonial home is not in Bengaluru where the application has been filed by the wife, hence, it is not maintainable. Dismissing the application, the Karnataka High Court held that in the complaint filed by the wife, various instances of domestic violence at different places viz. Chennai, Rajasthan and Gujarat were described and therefore, the complaint filed in Bengaluru is maintainable under section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. Thereafter the husband challenged it in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court made it clear that an application under the DV Act can be filed in a court where the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed. In the present case, the respondent is residing with her parents within the territorial limits of the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Bengaluru. In view of section 27(1) (a) of the Act, the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence. 

Jurisdiction awarded to Place of Employment

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking maintenance and other reliefs. The husband filed a writ petition for quashing in the High Court contending that the alleged place of domestic violence was in Uttar Pradesh. but the application was filed by the wife in Kolkata hence, is not maintainable. Dismissing the petition, the Calcutta High Court held that according to section 27 of the DV Act, “the petition under the Domestic Violence Act can be filed in a court where the ‘person aggrieved’ permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed and in the instant case the wife is temporarily residing in Kolkata and also is employed there and hence, the trial court has the jurisdiction.’’

Jurisdiction Regarding Protection Orders

The wife filed under section 12 of the DV Act in New Delhi against her husband. The magistrate directed protection orders. The husband failed to abide by the protection orders so the wife filed a complaint of breach of protection orders under section 31of the DV Act. Dissatisfied, the  husband filed a petition in the High Court seeking to disqualify the wife’s case as she has filed outside the territorial jurisdiction where alleged incidents have taken place u/s 177 of CrPC.  

Dismissing the petition, the Delhi High Court held that the wife had rightly approached the concerned court complaining of the breach of the protection order and the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the territorial jurisdiction has no merit. It further held that section  177 of CrPC itself has been framed by the legislature thoughtfully by using the precautionary word “ordinarily” to indicate that the rule is not unexceptional or unchangeable. Considering section 31 and rule 15(4) and considering the fact that DV Act is a beneficial legislation for women, the wife had approached the correct forum. 

Transfer of Application from Magistrate’s Court to Other Courts

The husband locked up the matrimonial home and denied access to the wife. So she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act. The husband then filed a divorce petition in the family court. The wife filed writ petition in the High Court for transfer of her domestic violence case to the family court by stating both the proceedings are interlinked. Allowing the transfer, the Bombay High Court held that the issues in both the cases with regard to matrimonial home are identical, and there should be common evidence for the issues regarding the  matrimonial home. 

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act, and a declaratory suit in the family court for assignment deeds executed by her husband in favour of his other relatives to be declared null and void. The husband and his relatives filed a writ petition in the High Court for transfer of her proceedings filed under the DV Act from the magistrate’s court to the family court by stating issues involved in both cases were the same.

Dismissing the present petition, the Kerala High Court held that an application under section 12 of the DV Act can be considered only by a magistrate. Further the court held that the procedures to be followed in adjudication, the enforcement of orders and the provisions for appeal are different in both courts.

Necessity and Validity of DIR by PO

Ex-parte ad-interim orders - DIR from PO is not mandatory, Judge’s discretion

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act through the Protection Officer (PO).  An order was passed in favor of the wife without calling for the protection officer’s report (DIR). The husband argued that an ex-parte ad-interim order cannot be passed without the report from the PO.  The court held that if the magistrate decides that at the initial stage the report need not be called for or has not been considered, it cannot be a ground for quashing the proceeding.  When his plea was rejected, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which was dismissed. 

The husband then approached the Delhi High Court which held that a magistrate, when petitioned under section 12 (1) of the DV Act, is not obliged to call for and consider the DIR before issuing notice to the respondent. Section 12(1) of the DV Act is equally applicable to interim as well as final orders.  However, if the DIR has already been submitted, it should be considered. In view of the fact that the court has taken a view affirming the judgment of the sessions court as well as the concerned magistrate’s court which had issued notice under section 12 without calling for a report from the Protection Officer,  the petition was bereft of merit and was therefore dismissed. 

Soon after her marriage, the wife left the matrimonial home due to mental and physical torture and dowry demands by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, and filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband as well as his family members seeking residence, maintenance and compensation. The husband preferred a petition in the Madras High Court to quash the proceedings filed by the wife and contended that the magistrate erred in passing an order without a report from a protection officer. 

The High Court dismissed the petition and held that section 12(1) does not mandate that an application seeking relief under the DV Act be accompanied with the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) or that the application should be moved by a protection officer (PO). Even rule 6 which stipulates the form and manner of making an application to the magistrate does not require that the DIR must accompany an application for relief sought u/s 12 of the DV Act. There is no obligation imposed on the magistrate to call for a DIR.

Protection Officer’s report an Important Piece of Evidence

The petitioner is a service provider under the DV Act. As a part of her study she had filed a PIL with her suggestions for implementations of the DV Act. The petitioner made a recommendation that the Domestic Incidents Report (DIR) filed by the Protection Officer is an important piece of evidence. It is recommended by the Lawyers’ Collective that it would be a sound practice for a DIR to be filed under section 10(2)(a) of the DV Act after the woman consents to counselling, before commencing counselling, so as to constitute a record of domestic violence, to be followed up by an application u/s 12 if required, for seeking the reliefs under the Act. The procedure may be informed to the husband along with the fact that upon any breach of the settlement entered into, the DIR would show prima facie the occurrence and record of domestic violence. The Bombay High Court gave a positive response that they have taken care of the same.

Power of Magistrates

Ex-parte ad-interim orders - DIR from PO is not mandatory, Judge’s discretion

The wife filed an application under section 26 of the DV Act seeking residence orders, maintenance, monetary reliefs and compensation. The magistrate framed issues with regards to cruelty only, skipping the other reliefs prayed for under the DV Act. Therefore, the wife filed an application for framing of additional issues keeping in view her other prayers under the DV Act. The family court dismissed the application on the ground that the proceedings under section 26 of the DV Act shall be governed by CrPC. which does not provide for framing of issues and therefore, the additional issues cannot be framed. The wife thereafter moved the High Court in appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Delhi High Court held that the DV Act provides a remedy in civil law for the protection of victims from domestic violence as noted in the Statement of Object and Reasons. The civil court, family court or criminal court dealing with the application under section 18 to 22 of the DV Act, can formulate its own procedure under section 28(2) of the DV Act. The word “court” in section 28(2) of the DV Act includes Civil Court, Family Court as well as the Criminal Court.

The wife filed an applicant under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband. The husband filed his reply after which the court fixed the date for the wife’s written evidence. The husband filed an application objecting to this procedure, but the magistrate dismissed it. The husband filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that evidence in DV case is required to be recorded in the presence of the husband, in a manner prescribed for summons case. The Bombay High Court dismissed the husband’s petition and held that section 28(2) gives flexibility to the court to depart from the procedure prescribed u/s 28(1) and to adopt its own procedure in deciding application under the DV Act. Further, the DV Act is a beneficial, social welfare legislation aimed at providing to victims of domestic violence speedy reliefs, which are civil in nature. 

It is not Mandatory to Prove Ingredients of 125 CrPC

An application u/s 12 of the DV Act was filed by the wife against the husband seeking maintenance and monetary relief. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. as maintenance and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the wife. Being aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court, which upheld the trial court’s order. Hence, a revision application was filed by the husband.

Dismissing the revision, the Manipur High Court held that even though section 28(1) specifically provides that all proceedings u/s 12 of the DV Act shall be governed by the provisions of CrPC, it is directory in nature and any departure from the provisions of CrPC will not vitiate proceeding initiated under section 12 of the DV Act. 

Therefore, the court held that the courts while dealing with proceedings u/s 12 of the  DV Act shall abide by the provisions of CrPC as far as possible. However, any departure from the provisions of CrPC will not have the effect of vitiating the proceeding in view of the fact that the statute itself specifically provides for the court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application u/s 12.  The High Court commented that it was not able to discern any material irregularity or illegality in the proceedings before the court below. 

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the  DV Act against the husband. The husband filed an application contending that the proceedings under the DV Act are to be dealt with in the manner laid down u/s 125, CrPC. The husband therefore, claimed that the wife is not entitled to file an affidavit-in-evidence and sought direction to call upon the wife to step into the witness box and adduce evidence. 

The Bombay High Court, keeping in mind the aim and object of the  DV Act and scope of section 28(2), considered that the court can deviate from procedure prescribed under Sub-section (1) of section 28 read with rule 6(5) of CrPC and devise its own procedure, which would include permitting evidence by way of an affidavit. In other words, the court in its discretion, can allow evidence on affidavit and permit cross examination to test the veracity of the evidence.

Interim Orders

At interim stage, not required to go into the merits, prima facie evidence is sufficient

After the death of the husband, his widow was not allowed to reside at her matrimonial house. The deceased husband and his brother jointly carried on the business from which, each had an income of about Rs.30,000/-p.m. So she filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the brother-in-law to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- p.m. to the widow and Rs.2,000/-p.m. to the child as interim maintenance. When challenged in the sessions court as well as in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the magistrate’s order was upheld. Thereafter an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court contending that since he was merely the brother-in-law, he had no liability to maintain the widow.

The Supreme Court held that the complaint prima facie indicates that the house where the husband and the wife resided belonged to a joint family. The two brothers carried on a joint business.Ultimately, whether the requirements of sections 2(f), 2(q), and 2(s) are fulfilled is a matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at the trial. At this stage, for the purpose of an interim order for maintenance, there was material which justifies the issuance of a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance.

It is not Mandatory to Prove Ingredients of 125 CrPC

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act through the Protection Officer. The magistrate held that at this stage if the report of the PO has not been called or has not been considered, it cannot be a ground for quashing the proceeding. Aggrieved, the husband filed an application in the High Court. The Delhi High Court held that section 12 (1) of the DV Act does not mandate that an application seeking relief under the Act should be accompanied with a DIR or even that it should be moved by a Protection Officer. Further, rule 6 which stipulates the form and manner of making an application to the magistrate does not require that the DIR must accompany an application for the relief under section 12 of the DV Act. Further there is no requirement to file a separate application for interim reliefs.

Effect of Previous Proceedings / Simultaneous Proceedings

Outcome of Previous Proceedings not to impact subsequent proceedings under DV Act

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act. The magistrate directed the husband to restrain from committing any act of domestic violence upon the wife and from alienating any assets of the Petitioner including the articles which were given to her at the time of marriage. The Respondent has been further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-p.m. for the wife and children. Further, the husband has been restrained from alienating or disposing of the shared household. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court where it was dismissed. Thereafter he filed an appeal in the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Calcutta High Court held that the magistrate recorded in the order that the husband was trying to drag this case on various pretexts and enough opportunity was given to the husband for filing written objection, if any, against the interim prayer of the wife, but, in spite of the same, husband failed to file the written objection. Upon perusal of the application and the report of the Protection Officer the order was passed and that there is no reason to interfere at this stage.

The wife was subjected to physical abuse and cruelty by her husband. She was not allowed to enter the matrimonial home, so she stayed with her parents. She then filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-p.m. to the wife as interim maintenance. The husband filed an appeal in the sessions court and contended that since they were divorced, there was no domestic relationship which was upheld. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the Bombay High Court which dismissed her appeal. Thereafter she approached the Supreme Court.

Upholding the magistrate’s order, the Supreme Court held that an act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability from the offence committed or deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled to under the Act. 

Simultaneous proceedings in other courts

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband. The husband filed an application for quashing in the High Court. The Gujarat High Court rejected the petition. Thereafter the husband filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 26(1) of the DV Act and contended that it is ultra vires to Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Dismissing the petition, the Gujarat High Court held that sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act relate to relief, which can be sought for even from civil court and they are civil in nature, the husband cannot derive the advantage of Article 20(1) of the Constitution to challenge the validity of section 26 of the DV Act.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and father-in-law seeking protection orders, alternative accommodation and maintenance. Simultaneously she has filed an application under section 125 CrPC and a petition for divorce. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the High Court stating that multiple cases have been filed against him in order to harass and insult him and his family. Dismissing the petition, the Kerala High Court held that it cannot be denied that the wife has every right to file the cases under the respective Acts simultaneously. The wife cannot be asked to consolidate her claims into one application/forum. The exercise of a statutory right cannot be described as an abuse of the process of law unless it is prima facie false and vexatious, until the court concerned says so, ultimately. 

The wife has filed an application in the family court u/s 125 of Cr PC for grant of interim maintenance, which was denied on the ground that the wife was capable of maintaining herself and that the husband was voluntarily paying her Rs.10,000/- as maintenance in her application under section 24 the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).  Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. Setting aside the order of the lower courts, the Delhi High Court held that  grant of maintenance under section 24 of the HMA does not bar grant of maintenance from other proceedings.

Dual Reliefs under S. 125 CrPC / Matrimonial Proceedings and the DV Act

The wife had filed two separate cases, one under the DV Act and the other, under section 125 CrPC. She also filed criminal cases against the husband. Both courts gave orders for maintenance separately.  The family court ordered the adjustment of maintenance amount which was passed under the DV Act. The husband contested the said order of the family court on two grounds. Firstly, whether two orders can be passed on the same person, which are also of the same nature and secondly that the family court,  while  passing the orders, did not consider the ingredients of section 125, CrPC, like the wife has been staying separately without reasonable cause, etc. 

Dismissing the appeal, the Allahabad High Court held that orders given separately are legitimate in nature and have been passed by the courts based on their discretion. The  family court also, while giving the orders of maintenance had given due consideration to the orders under the DV Act and had adjusted the amount accordingly. The court also observed that the wife was living separately because of the mental cruelty inflicted upon her by her  husband, hence filing of the DV Act is legitimate, as she had been a domestic relation in the past and opting out of it due to conditions created by the husband 

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking maintenance. Simultaneously an application seeking maintenance was also filed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The magistrate held that the husband though jobless is capable of earning 1 lakh rupees and directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-p.m. under the Hindu Marriage Act and Rs.10,000/- under the DV Act. The husband challenged this in the sessions court contending that maintenance cannot be granted from both the Acts but was dismissed. 

 Dismissing the husband’s petition, the Bombay High Court emphasised on sections 20 and 26 of the DV Act and section 24 of the HMA and held that the maintenance granted under the DV Act is in addition and not in derogation to the maintenance granted under the HMA.

Allegations Against the Wife not to be Considered

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- p.m. as maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the sessions court where the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-p.m. Thereafter the husband filed a revision in the High Court contending that the wife was adulterous and that she had left the matrimonial house on her own accord, hence he was not obligated to maintain her. He further contended that the investigation reports in her criminal cases show that there are false allegations against him and his family.  

Dismissing the petition, the Chandigarh High Court held that since the wife was living separately from her husband and was not in a position to bear the economic expenses, it was the responsibility of the husband to maintain her according to law and the Hindu Shastras. It further held that the proceedings in the criminal case were still pending before the competent court. So, only on the basis of the final report given by the police, no adverse inference can be drawn against the wife. Both the courts have passed orders on interim maintenance and the parties are free to lead evidence before the magistrate. Further, mere production of the letter in support of the arguments that the wife is having relation with another person is not sufficient for any court to render a decision. With regards to the enhancement, the court further held that in fixing the quantum of maintenance, standard of living consistent with the status of the family must be taken into consideration. The husband cannot say that he is unable to maintain his wife and children or that the wife is educated and competent to earn.

The husband harassed and assaulted his wife and children regularly, thereafter the wife was thrown out of the house, and was not provided maintenance. The husband also obtained an ex parte divorce decree against his wife against which she filed an application for setting aside the decree, which was pending. The wife also filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking monetary reliefs and maintenance. The husband contended that the petition was not maintainable as the wife  had left the house prior to the DV Act coming in force and also that she was earning well and was also having an affair.  The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m. as maintenance. Aggrieved, the husband appealed in the sessions court where it was held that the petition was maintainable and the allegation of adultery was supported by the evidence produced by the daughters. Thereafter the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. 

Setting aside the sessions court’s order, the Calcutta High Court held that the allegation of adultery is only supported by his daughter and not by his other children and hence did not inspire confidence of the court. It further held that the sessions judge erred in refusing relief only on the ground of adultery, as the petition was rightly held to be maintainable and was not barred by any limitation. 

Amendment to Petitions / Applications under DV Act

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and his relatives. Later she filed an application praying to make certain amendments in the petition. The husband prayed to the magistrate to present oral submissions to oppose the same but order was passed without such hearing. The husband filed a recalling application to the magistrate which was rejected.  Aggrieved, he filed an appeal in the sessions court where too it was rejected. Thereafter the husband filed a writ petition in the High Court. Dismissing the husband’s petition, the Bombay High Court held that it is clear that the provisions of the DV Act are mainly made for giving relief to the affected women, due to domestic violence etc. In other words, the proceedings under the Act are of the quasi civil nature and in such proceedings, the court would have power to allow amendment in an application and written statement.

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking protection, maintenance and compensation orders. The magistrate and the sessions court allowed the amendment to the original application by the wife wherein she had modified the reliefs sought in the application. The husband challenged the order before the High Court contending that the DV Act was governed by the CrPC which contained criminal procedure which did not permit amendments to the application. The Delhi High Court held that although section 28 (1) stated that the DV Act must be governed by the procedure under the CrPC, sub-section (2) empowers the courts to lay down its own procedure for disposal of the application to the Act. This provision has been incorporated by the legislature keeping in mind the object and purpose of the DV Act which was to provide speedy justice and avoid multiple complaints by the wife. In light of this, it has become an established principle of law, that amendments to an original application are permissible in cases where the lower courts deem fit.

It was further appealed in the Supreme Court where it was held that amendments of complaints or petitions filed under section 12 of the DV Act can be allowed. If the power to amend the complaint/application etc. is not read into the aforesaid provision, the very purpose which the Act attempts to sub-serve itself may be defeated in many cases.

Non-compliance of Orders passed under the DV Act

The wife was rejected from a job appointment as she disclosed her ongoing domestic violence application in court. The Supreme Court held that domestic violence is not an offence under the DV Act. Domestic violence defined in section 3 of the DV Act per se is not an offence and the Act does not provide for any punishment for the same. However, breach of a protection order passed by the Court, amounts to an offence under section 31 of the DV Act.

The reason appears to be that the proceedings under section 12 of the DV Act are civil in nature triable by a civil court, criminal court as well as the family court. However, in the event of breach of a protection order, a fresh criminal case has to be initiated against the accused and in that criminal case, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is empowered to frame a charge under IPC or any other law if the facts disclose the commission of such offence. The fresh complaint under section 31 of the DV Act would be a criminal case as the respondent would be accused of an offence under section 31 of the DV Act and as per section 31(2), it should preferably be tried by the magistrate who passed the order. It highlighted the fact that under section 5(e) imposes a duty on the magistrate to inform the complainant to file an FIR for any offence under IPC. Further, section 31(2) also provides that upon breach of a protection order, a separate criminal case has to be initiated which should preferably be tried by the same court.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and the magistrate granted interim maintenance orders. The husband did not comply with the orders. In this matter, the wife filed three revision applications before the High Court of Bombay seeking relief for initiating appropriate action for non-compliance of the interim orders. The wife filed an application under section 31 for non compliance which was rejected. An appeal to the sessions court was also rejected. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the High Court.

Dismissing the orders of the magistrate and sessions court, the Bombay High Court held the magistrate is empowered to entertain complaints under section 31 of the DV Act and that the magistrate had refused to discharge the responsibility and also failed to exercise his power merely on the ground that the prayer made in the application was to initiate contempt proceedings.

Striking off Defence

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her husband for maintenance. The husband did not pay up the maintenance and so the wife filed an application for striking off his defence. The magistrate dismissed this and the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. The Delhi High Court directed the employer of the husband to deduct Rs.50,000/- p.m. from his salary and pay directly to the wife, as arrears of maintenance. It held that disobedience of court’s order can be taken into account as a ground to strike off of the defence and no hyper technical approach is to be adopted in such matters. Failure of husband to clear the arrears of maintenance order, justifies striking off the defence of the husband. 

Restraint on Power of Appellate Courts

Appellate Court not to interfere in the discretionary powers of the Magistrate Court

In this case, the Telangana High Court decided whether a revision under section 397 and 401 CrPC was maintainable against an interim order passed u/s23 of the DV Act.  The bench  discussed the case of Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/1432/2008 where it was observed that orders contemplated by section 23 of the DV Act were discretionary in nature. It observed that when a  remedy by way of appeal is provided under the special statute,  petitions under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India or section 482 CrPC for quashing are not maintainable.

The High Court held that it can entertain a revision, only if it finds an apparent error in the findings recorded by the subordinate courts and not otherwise. After scrutinising the views of the various High Courts on this issue, the High Court observed that the said criminal revision petition and the connected miscellaneous application are not maintainable and left it open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under section 29 of the DV Act.

In this case, the core issue dealt is the discretionary power of the magistrate and that there should not be unnecessary interference of the appellate court unless there is manifest error on point of law or there has been a miscarriage of justice in the orders passed by the lower court. 

Dismissing the petition filed by the husband, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the  power being discretionary, has to be exercised judicially and not lightly. In this matter, after relying on a few judgments, the High Court came to the conclusion that there was no error or any contradiction with regards to the order passed by the magistrate. Hence, the court upheld the order of residence passed by the magistrate which had been affirmed by the sessions court, which was perfectly in accordance with law and did not warrant any interference. It was held that there should be no interference as there was no perversity in the orders passed by the lower courts.

Conditional Stay by the Higher Court

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking various reliefs. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. as maintenance, through an ex parte order. Thereafter the wife filed an appeal for enhancement and the husband filed an appeal for setting aside the order in the sessions court where the maintenance amount was increased to  Rs.10,000/- p.m.  Being dissatisfied, both parties filed a revision in the High Court. 

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the orders in favour of the wife at this stage with the condition that an amount Rs.50,000 will be deposited by the husband before the magistrate as a security  It was further ordered that during the period in which the matter remains pending before the magistrate, the husband will deposit Rs.5,000 p.m. towards maintenance of the wife. 

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to be used sparingly

The core issue which was dealt with in this matter was the applicability of section 482 of CrPC (quashing of proceedings). The Hon’ble Single Judge examined since reliefs u/s 18 to 22 of the DV Act are civil nature, whether the respondents can seek for quashing of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and that continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court. The court held that since the DV Act provides for  civil reliefs and the magistrates are free to lay down their own procedure by not taking coercive steps and since it is not a criminal trial, the original respondents cannot rush with an application under section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in as a party. The court further held that only in exceptional cases, section 482 of CrPC can be invoked. The respondents can establish their non involvement in the matter in the civil proceedings before the magistrate. Hence, petitions filed for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in as a party are not maintainable

In this case, the Gujarat High Court looked into the applicability of section 482 in proceedings under the DV Act and held that on reading the DV Act it is evident that the CrPC is applicable with respect to procedure to be followed, appeal to the sessions court and penal provisions u/s 31 and 32. The provisions of the Act provide for remedial measures for civil rights of women but the machinery provided is through a criminal court. The court held that section 482 of CrPC will be applicable to proceedings under the DV Act subject to the express provision for appeal under the Act and when no case is made out for abuse of process of the Court. 

The petitioner invoked section 482 of CrPC to quash the proceedings under sections 18,19, 20 and 21 of the DV Act. The Gujarat High Court held that the proceedings u/s 12, 18 to 23 and 31 of the DV Act would not ipso facto attract section 482 of CrPC. Further while adopting the provision of CrPC, the DV Act intends to apply procedures necessary for passing orders for securing the civil rights contemplated u/s 12, 18 to 23 of the DV Act. The magistrate is competent to deal with the proceedings arising under DV Act and the sessions court is contemplated as competent appellate authority. The court further commented that merely because judicial authorities contemplated under the CrPC are competent to deal with the proceedings arising out of the DV Act, it cannot be argued that such proceedings deal with crime.

Proceedings not to be quashed at the initial stage

The husband and his family members tortured the wife mentally and physically as she could not bear children. The husband compelled the wife to stay in his brother’s house and only occasionally visited her. So the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking protection orders. The husband filed an application for summary dismissal of the case which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the husband filed appeal in the sessions court which was dismissed. Thereafter, the husband filed an application for quashing in the High Court contending that the domestic incident report was not considered before commencing an enquiry and also the incidents of domestic violence took place before the commencement of the DV Act, thus it is bad in law. Dismissing the husband’s petition, the Jharkhand High Court held that the acts of deprivation from economic and financial resources, refusal of access to the shared household and threats of alienation of assets in which she has an interest or is entitled, by virtue of her domestic relationship with her husband, is allegedly still continuing against her, therefore, the DV Act would apply. 

Costs to be awarded

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-p.m. as maintenance to the wife. The husband filed an application for recall contending that during the trial he was not given an opportunity to lead evidence and cross examine the wife which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the husband filed a writ petition in the High Court. Setting aside the order of the magistrate, the Bombay High Court held that the order causes serious prejudice to the wife and directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the wife as cost. 

Delay Condonation

Long delay in appeal not to be entertained.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/-p.m. as rent with a 10% increase each year, Rs.3,000/-p.m. as maintenance and Rs.50,000/- as a lump sum compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved, the husband filed a writ petition in the High Court. Dismissing the petition, the Delhi High Court observed that the husband has not been following the direction of the magistrate since 9 months of its passing and held that it was clear that the writ petition was filed with an intention of delaying the proceedings. 

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance and residence orders. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount Rs.2,500/-p.m. as interim maintenance and to provide accommodation. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which was time barred since there was a delay of 16 months and hence was dismissed. Thereafter he filed an appeal in the High Court. Dismissing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the delay of 16 months was an ignorance of law and hence the magistrate’s order does not need the court’s intervention.

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking protection orders. Aggrieved, the husband filed a writ petition. Dismissing the petition, the Bombay High Court held that the husband did not avail of the alternative remedy u/s 29 of the DV Act. It relied upon the judgement of Sabita Mark Burges v Mark Lionel Burges (W.P 4150 of 2013), whereby the magistrate restrained the husband from committing any act of violence against the wife and also restrained him from entering the residence where the wife has been residing. 

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance and residence orders. The magistrate passed ex parte orders directing the husband to pay an amount Rs.2,500/- p.m. as interim maintenance and to provide accommodation. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which was time barred due to delay of 16 months and hence was dismissed. Thereafter he filed an appeal in the High Court. Dismissing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the delay of 16 months was merely an ignorance of law and hence the magistrate’s order does not need the court’s intervention.

Condonation of Delay

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking maintenance and other reliefs. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to the minor children as maintenance. The husband failed to challenge the order in appeal within the statutory period and later filed an application for condonation of the delay of 91 days in the sessions court. The sessions court dismissed the application on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown by him. In appeal, the Bombay High Court affirmed the orders passed by the sessions court.

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance and compensation. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and  Rs.10,000/- compensation, and maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court wherein the magistrate’s orders were upheld. Thereafter he filed a revision in the High Court seeking condonation of delay of 1900 days contending that settlement talks were going and there was lack of communication. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the revision as no sufficient cause was shown by him for condonation of delay.

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking several reliefs. The husband objected on the ground of jurisdiction. The magistrate upheld his objections and dismissed the application filed by the wife under the DV Act. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the sessions court for condonation of delay of 16 days which was allowed by the sessions court. Thereafter the  husband challenged this in the High Court wherein the Bombay High Court held that the order passed by the sessions court was just and proper as the Act is a beneficial legislation for women.

Retrospective Effect

The husband along with his family tortured the wife for dowry. So she filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/-p.m. as maintenance. Rs.1,000/-p.m. to their minor son and Rs.500/-p.m. as rent for alternative accommodation to the wife. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court where it was dismissed. Thereafter he filed a revision in the High Court contending that the domestic violence took place before the DV Act came into being. The Bombay High Court held that the wife has a right of protection under the DV Act. The question of retrospective application does not arise as the wife was denied maintenance and access to shared household even after 2006. Since civil wrongs are continued to be committed against her, she is certainly entitled to move the application under section 12 of the DV Act.

The wife was continuously assaulted by her alcoholic husband. So she filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance for herself and her son. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to his son and to arrange for rental accommodation for the residence of the wife and son. Aggrieved the husband filed an appeal in the session court wherein the court affirmed the orders of the magistrate’s court. Thereafter he filed a writ petition in the High Court on the ground that the incidents of domestic violence narrated by the wife are prior to the DV Act coming into force. The Bombay High Court upheld the orders of the lower courts and emphasized that the DV Act has retrospective effect.

Ever since the marriage, the husband and his family members have tortured the wife for dowry. Therefore, the wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking residence order, maintenance, monetary relief and compensation. The magistrate passed an order restraining the husband from inflicting domestic violence on the wife, a residence order directing the husband to allow the wife to reside in the matrimonial house and to pay her an amount of Rs.2,000/- p.m. as maintenance. The husband challenged this in the sessions court where the maintenance order was upheld but the residence order was set aside. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the Madras High Court where the order of the sessions court was upheld. Thereafter, she filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. 

While allowing the appeal filed by the aggrieved wife, the Supreme Court held that section 2(g) of the DV Act states that “domestic violence” has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3 of the DV Act. Section 3 is the definition of domestic violence. Clause (iv) of Section 3 relates to “economic abuse” which includes prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household as evident from Clause (c) of Section 3(iv). 

In the current case, even after the order was passed by the lower court, the husband did not allow the wife to reside in the matrimonial home which was the  shared household. It was held that there was continuance of domestic violence committed by the husband against the wife. The judgement of the High court was set aside and the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the wife as compensation. 

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking maintenance, monetary relief and residence. The magistrate and the sessions court both held that while filing the application the wife was not staying with the husband and that the DV Act does not have retrospective effect. Thereafter the wife challenged this in the High Court. The matter was referred to the larger bench wherein the Rajasthan High Court construed the definition of domestic relationship as well as aggrieved woman and held that the DV Act is retrospective in its application..

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking residence order, maintenance, monetary relief and compensation. The husband filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that the time period mentioned by the wife where allegedly domestic violence took place was much before the Act came into effect hence it is not maintainable. Relying on various rulings of the Supreme Court on this issue, the  Jharkhand High Court, held that the DV Act has retrospective effect in nature and hence the proceedings are maintainable. 

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking residence order, maintenance, monetary relief and compensation. The husband filed an application in the High Court for quashing, contending that the time period mentioned by the wife where allegedly domestic violence took place was much before the Act came into effect and hence it is not maintainable.

Relying on sections 2(a) and 2(f) of the Act, the Madras High Court emphasized that the domestic relationship as laid down in section 2(f) of the Act includes any domestic relationship either of the present moment or at any point of time in the past, where the parties have lived together in a shared household. The question, whether a woman, who was in a domestic relationship with the respondent and was subjected to domestic violence prior to coming into force of the DV Act falls within the definition of aggrieved person was answered in the affirmative.

Execution Proceedings

Execution Process As Per The Provisions Of Crpc

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking residence orders and maintenance for herself and her children..The magistrate passed an injunction to the husband from dispossessing the wife from the house and directed him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the wife. The husband failed to comply with the orders, so the wife moved an application for its enforcement. The magistrate turned down the application by order holding that in a proceeding under the DV Act, he has no jurisdiction to enforce the order awarding interim maintenance. Aggrieved, the wife approached the High Court u/s 482 of the CrPC. 

Allowing the petition, the Kerala High Court held that the magistrate has power to be governed by the CrPC u/s 28 of the DV Act and hence if  there was non-compliance of the order by the party the magistrate has to execute such order following the procedure under section 125(3) of the Code.

Attachment of In-Law’s Property in Execution Process - Restrain from making Disparaging Comments about Women

The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an interim maintenance to the wife. In execution proceedings, the magistrate passed an order which disposed of the execution application without attaching the properties indicated in the execution application to satisfy the monetary claim of the wife. Thereafter, the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. 

Allowing the appeal, the Delhi High Court held that the magistrate should execute the order passed for interim maintenance. It further held that at the remand stage, the magistrate ought not to have made disparaging comments on the wife who was fully justified in seeking attachments of properties which were in India. Use of expressions ‘target’ etc. have to be avoided in judicial decisions when referring to interpersonal relationships, unless there is no other word to express oneself for the reason a person who is pursuing her legitimate right would feel hurt if told that she is targeting somebody.  As a matter of fact, the wife was targeting nobody. Her husband had abandoned her and had left for the United States of America soon after the marriage. Her in-laws threw her out of the matrimonial house. This judgement sets a guideline for the lower courts to respect women who have been subjected to violence. Further it lays emphasis on the fact that execution  against in-laws ought to be allowed if it is more practicable than that against the husband. 

Arrest Warrant Under THE DV ACT for Non Payment Of Maintenance

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her husband. The magistrate directed the husband to pay maintenance to the wife which he breached. Hence the wife filed an application for issue of warrant for recovery of the maintenance amount. Consequently, a warrant was issued. Aggrieved, the husband challenged this order but it was dismissed. The magistrate held that if he paid off the arrears of maintenance which is an amount of Rs.56,000/-, he would be released at the time of execution of the warrant. Aggrieved, the husband appealed in the sessions court which was dismissed. The magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against the husband on his failure to pay the maintenance amount. Thereafter the husband filed an application for quashing in the High Court contending that the warrant cannot be issued under the DV Act. Dismissing the husband’s contentions, the Bombay High Court considering the various provisions of the Act, stated that a warrant can be issued if the husband flouts the orders of the Court. 

Residence Orders

Residence orders in Favour of Wife

Due to harassment by the husband, the wife started residing separately and filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act. The magistrate granted residence orders. The husband filed an application praying that the wife should be directed to remove herself from the residence since the accommodation was provided by the government in the course of his employment and he has since retired. The magistrate directed the husband to allow her to stay in the upper portion of the premises owned by him or arrange for her alternative accommodation or provide her rent amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. 

Aggrieved, the husband challenged this in the sessions court which was allowed. The wife  filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court, which set aside the orders of the sessions court. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a wife has the right to stay in a shared household with dignity. The Supreme Court allowed the wife’s re-entry in the permanent residence of the husband, with protection order and awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. The court further clarified that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled under DV Act.

The wife filed an application for protection and residence under the DV Act. Meanwhile the husband was granted an injunction from the Family Court restricting the wife from entering the house. The magistrate did not grant an order of residence in favor of the wife in order to avoid contradictory orders with the family court. Hence, she moved an application for vacating the order of injunction in the family court which was granted. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the High Court.

The Kerala High court observed that the right conferred on the wife under section 17 of the DV Act cannot be defeated by granting an order of injunction restraining her from entering into the shared household. The civil court or family court could not grant such an injunction, so long as the right of the wife is either admitted or proved or not disputed. Even if a dispute arises, the right to reside in the shared household cannot be sidelined until it is proven that the relationship is of non-domestic nature. The DV Act provides for a higher right in favor of a wife. 

The wife filed an application under the DV Act against the husband seeking residence and maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay interim maintenance along with residence orders. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which was dismissed. Thereafter, the husband appealed in the High Court praying for quashing.

The Kerala High Court upheld the orders of the lower courts and held that there was no requirement to interfere with the said order as the same did not involve any abuse of the process of the court. 

The husband and his family tortured the wife for dowry ever since marriage. Therefore, the wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act seeking residence order, maintenance, monetary relief and compensation. The magistrate directed the husband to not inflict domestic violence on the wife, to allow her in the matrimonial house and to pay her an amount of Rs.2,000/- p.m. as maintenance. The husband challenged this in the sessions court where the maintenance order was upheld but the residence order set aside. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the Madras High Court where the previous order was upheld. Thereafter, she filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court while allowing the appeal of the aggrieved wife held that section 2(g) of the DV Act states that “domestic violence” has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3 of the DV Act. Section 3 is the definition of domestic violence. Clause (iv) of section 3 relates to “economic abuse” which includes prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household as evident from clause (c) of section 3(iv). In the current case, even after the order passed by the magistrate the husband did not allow the wife to reside in the matrimonial home which was the  shared household. It was held that there was continuance of domestic violence committed by the husband against the wife. The judgement of the High Court was set aside and the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the wife. 

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws. She also filed a criminal case under 498A, IPC  against her husband. The husband appealed in the High Court for quashing the DV proceedings contending that both the DV Act application and the 498A complaint have the same facts and that parallel proceedings should be prohibited. Further  that the DV proceeding is not maintainable against the in-laws.

Dismissing the petition, the Guwahati High Court held that u/s 12 and 26 of the DV Act, any aggrieved women can file an application along with any other civil/criminal proceedings.  Along with this, it also said that as section 498A IPC is incapable of providing various reliefs to the aggrieved woman, which can be rightfully demanded under the DV Act, therefore it is in favour of the victim to file a case under the DV Act. It was further held that the woman should be informed by the magistrate about the fact that she can seek maintenance and monetary relief from any Act she wants and can file separate cases on the same issue. It will increase the legal awareness of the victim and will help in serving the aim of the DV Act. 

The wife was deserted by the husband for about eight years and he was reported missing by the police. The wife received a notice from the Revenue Recovery Act, proposing a sale of the property for realisation of dues, amounting to Rs.2,84,23,722/- together with interest and collection charges thereon, owing to the Sales Tax department from her husband. This was brought to the notice of the police, but was of no use. Therefore she filed a writ petition in the High Court as the house was her only last refuge where she lived with her daughters.

The Kerala High Court observed that the trauma that she has had to endure all these years, in trying to find financial resources to sustain herself and her two daughters, would have sufficed for any deserted wife to maintain a complaint against her husband, alleging domestic violence, inter alia, under the heads of emotional and economic abuse. In that event, such a person would have been entitled to the protection offered by section 17 of the DV Act, the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. The rights available to a deserted wife under the DV Act must surely be available to the petitioner whose husband has been missing since 2006. Although the petitioner may not, strictly speaking, have the locus standi to maintain a complaint under the DV Act, principles of equity and fairness can certainly be taken into consideration while dispensing justice in any particular case. 

Mentioning the definitions of economic abuse and right of a woman to reside in her shared household under the DV Act, the High Court held that any action that is proposed by the respondents, for sale of the property must necessarily take into account the rights of the wife in respect of the said property. The said aspect not having engaged the attention of the respondents in the instant case cannot be legally sustained. The court declared that proceedings for sale of the property, at a time when the wife’s husband’s whereabouts are not known, cannot be continued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, without first ensuring that the petitioner’s rights under the DV Act are adequately safeguarded.

The wife was subjected to cruelty for more than 22 years. Within a year from the marriage the husband started harassing the wife and she was virtually starved, not being provided the necessary requirements. Later he got married again and drove the wife out of the matrimonial house. The husband visited her house to physically assault her along with his second wife and their children. So, the wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against the husband and his children seeking maintenance, monetary relief, compensation and residence orders. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.800/- p.m. as maintenance, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.400/- p.m. towards rent  to the wife. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court contending that for such a long period they were living separately hence it cannot be said that there were any domestic relations as required by the provisions of the DV Act. The sessions court upheld the magistrate’s order. Thereafter the husband filed an appeal in the High Court.

Dismissing the petition, the Bombay High Court held that in view of the fact that even after the order passed by the subordinate judge the husband has not allowed the wife to reside in the shared household, it is evident that there is a continuance of domestic violence committed by him. Further, the wife is not expected to show that just before the filing of the proceeding she was subjected to domestic violence. In view of such continued domestic violence, it is not necessary for the courts below to decide whether the domestic violence is committed prior to the coming into force of the DV Act and whether such act falls within the definition of the term domestic violence as defined under the DV Act. It further held that the wife needs support of the court at this stage. The husband and the issues of the husband, own property but they are not giving support of any kind and they have subjected the wife to economic abuse.

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance for her and her child. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the child alone. Aggrieved, she filed an appeal in the sessions court where the maintenance of Rs.15,000/- was confirmed and further directed the husband not to cause any disturbance to the wife and child, and restrained him from disposing off their assets. The husband challenged this in the High Court. The Madras High Court upheld the protection order passed against the husband restraining him from causing any disturbance to the wife along with the maintenance order. 

The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- p.m. as maintenance and Rs.19,000/- p.m. as rent for alternative accommodation. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which set aside the trial court’s order. Thereafter, the wife filed an appeal in the High Court.

While setting aside the order of the sessions court, the Karnataka High Court held that the magistrate can pass an order under the DV Act for alternative residence sought against the husband or for  accommodation to the victim of domestic violence and that she is also entitled to secure some standard of living in which she has shared the residential house. The object of the DV Act is to provide effective and speedy protection to women, who are victims of domestic violence. The said provision of the Act has to be read with flexibility and not in a restricted way.

Residence Orders - Claims Against In-laws

The daughter-in-law filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her father-in-law seeking monetary relief. under the DV Act after her husband expired. The magistrate directed the father-in-law to pay an amount of Rs.300/- p.m. to the daughter-in-law as monetary relief. Aggrieved, the daughter in law appealed in the sessions court where the matter was directed to be sent back to the magistrate and pass a fresh order after hearing both the parties. The magistrate increased the amount to Rs.1,500/- p.m. till the time she does not get her share in the ancestral property of her deceased husband. Dissatisfied, the father-in-law appealed in the sessions court where the monetary relief was reduced to Rs.1,000/- p.m., but maintained other aspects of judgment. Thereafter the father-in-law appealed in the High Court for quashing. 

Dismissing the petition, the Orissa High Court held that the daughter-in-law has legitimate rights over the monetary relief under the DV Act from the father-in-law. After the death of her husband, she has rights over the ancestral property of the father-in-law, therefore until the daughter in law receives her share of property, she is entitled for monetary relief. The Court held that there were continuous acts of domestic violence.

The widow lady filed a case under the DV Act against her in-laws for maintenance, residence and other interim reliefs. The said case was filed in the year 2008. Her husband had expired in the year 2002, after which she had left the matrimonial house and filed a property suit. The said property suit was disposed of and a share of the joint family property was granted to the widow and she was also granted a portion of her deceased husband’s insurance.  

The in-laws thereafter filed the present petition for quashing of the case filed by the widow. Theirs was a two fold contention. The first contention was that there was no domestic relationship as she was residing separately since the year 2002 and despite their pleas she did not return. The DV Act was enacted in the year 2006 and she filed the case under the DV Act in the year 2008 and hence she was not entitled to the reliefs under the said Act. With regards to the said contentions, the High Court stated that the nature of violence was continuous in nature and was taking place even till the filing of the application. Hence, filing of case was held legitimate under the DV Act and the petition filed by in-laws was rejected. 

The second objection which was raised by the in-laws was that the widow was, as per the disposal of the property suit, allotted a share in the property hence she is not entitled to any of the reliefs under the DV Act. The court rejected this contention stating that the same was not relevant. The court commented that the remarks made by the lower court, while granting the reliefs, may be considered while passing orders in the other suit, but the application filed under the  DV Act cannot be quashed.

After the death of the husband, the father-in-law refused to let the widow reside in the matrimonial house. So, she filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance and  residence. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. as maintenance and give her a room to stay in the household. When challenged, the sessions court upheld the magistrate’s order. Thereafter, the father-in-law filed a revision in the High Court on the ground that the house of the petitioner at Patna did not come in the category of “shared household,” The Patna  High Court interpreted section 2(s), 2(f) and 17 of the DV Act and confirmed the orders of the lower courts on the ground that the widow has all right to stay in the shared household. 

The wife was deserted by the husband and he remarried. Three months after this marriage, the husband bought property, partly out of the money that the first wife  had brought as her dowry. Thereafter he sold that property to his father, who in turn gifted it to the mother of the husband. The parents, in connivance with the husband, took shelter under the Senior Citizens Act in order to evict the wife and the minor daughter from the house. The Tribunal, under the said Act, passed an order of eviction. 

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the daughter-in-law can be evicted by the summary proceedings of the Senior Citizens Act. It was held that Parliament enacted a legislation which would “provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being a victim of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in society.

A significant object of the legislation is to provide for and recognize the rights of women to secure housing and to recognize the right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial home or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in the shared household. Allowing the Senior Citizens Act to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlements of a woman to a right in a shared household within the meaning of the DV Act, would defeat the object and purpose which the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation. 

The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the DV Act cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously constructed. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act.

The wife faced severe emotional and mental abuse by her husband and in-laws after marriage. So she filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking multiple reliefs including residence orders. The magistrate directed the respondents not to alienate the wife from her shared household. The father-in-law filed a separate suit for injunction against the order contending that the house belongs to him and he has no responsibility to maintain the wife in the lifetime of her husband which was allowed. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the High Court. The High Court held that the wife had the right to reside in the shared household. Thereafter, the father-in-law filed an appeal in the Supreme Court citing the judgment, S.R. Batra v Taruna Batra (2006), wherein it was held that a wife can claim the right to residence under section 17(1) of the DV Act only if the property is owned or rented by the husband, or which belongs to the joint family with whom the husband resides. 

Overruling its own judgement, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the term ‘shared household’ under section 2(s) of the DV Act. It was held that the definition of the term ‘shared household’ is exhaustive and not enumerative. For a property to be considered as a ‘shared household’, it has to be proved that it is either owned/co-owned or rented by a ‘respondent’ in a complaint under the DV Act and that the aggrieved person has resided in the said house at any stage of her domestic relationship. The aggrieved person is not required to own or rent the premises, either by themselves or jointly with the family. A ‘shared household’ is also one that may also belong to a joint family of which the aggrieved person is a member irrespective of whether they have any right, title or interest in the shared household.

Residence Order in favour of Mother

The son had neglected to maintain the mother in her old age and had stopped providing any monetary assistance and had driven the mother out of the house. So the mother filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against the son seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the son to allot a portion in his house to enable the mother to reside there and take care of all her necessities. It was further ordered that the son does not have any right to send her out of the house which is a joint property. Aggrieved, the son appealed in the sessions court but his appeal was dismissed. Thereafter he appealed in the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Madras High Court held that there was no fault in the order passed by the magistrate as the son being a biological son is duty bound to take care of the mother in old age. 

The mother filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her son. The magistrate partly allowed her application, granted only protection order and refused maintenance and residence order. Aggrieved, the mother filed an appeal in the sessions court where the court restrained son from creating any third-party interest in the shop and granted half of the license fees for the shop and granted maintenance order. Thereafter, the son filed an appeal in the High Court. The Bombay High Court affirmed the residence order of the session court on the ground that mother is the joint owner and has share in the shop. 

Residence Orders in favour of Daughter/Sister

The sister had filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her brother and sister-in-law for protection, maintenance and residence. The magistrate granted a protection order and directed the brother to provide alternate accommodation. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal in the session court which set aside the order of the magistrate. Thereafter the sister filed an appeal in the High Court.

The Kerala High Court set aside the order of the sessions court on the ground that a daughter has right to reside in ancestral property of her parents, and has right to maintenance from her share and profit in the family business. The magistrate’s order was upheld with modification of her re-entry in the shared household.

The sister was harassed and thrown out of the ancestral property/shared household by her brother. She filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against her brother and sister-in-law for protection, maintenance and residence. The magistrate directed the brother to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance and an amount of Rs.50,000/- p.m. for alternate accommodation. Aggrieved, the brother filed an appeal in the session court where it was set aside. Thereafter the sister filed an appeal in the High Court.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the order of the sessions court on the ground that a daughter has right to reside in ancestral property of her parents, and has right to maintenance from her share and profit in the family business. 

MAJLIS HELPLINE - 07506732641

SUBSCRIBE NOW

For latest updates & impactful stories.

© 2024 by Majlis. Website developed & designed by Lakshmi V.